THE    CENTURY  BIBLE    HANDBOOKS 

Life  and  Teaching  of 
Jesus  Christ 

REV.  W.  a  SELBIE,  M.  A. 


J^^.i^L.-'o 


i^ 


»< 


«.t^ 


^^  tt?t  ^\\irAn^ic^l 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


'% 


% 


BS  417  .CA6  V.7 
Selbie,  W.  B.  1862-194A. 
The  life  &  teaching  of  Jesus 
Christ 


CENTURY  BIBLE  HANDBOOKS 

General  Ebitor 
Pkincipal  WALTER  F.  ADENEY,  M.A.,  D.D. 


THE   LIFE  AND   TEACHING 
OF  JESUS   CHRIST 


.  THE  LIFE  &  TEACHING  OF 

JESUS  CHRIST 


:::.Z''^^ 


*     DEC  12 1910      * 

W.  B.  SELBIE,  M.A.        ""^~ 


HODDER  AND  STOUGHTON 

NEW   YORK 

1909 


AUTHOR'S   PREFACE 

This  little  book  makes  no  claim  to  an  exhaustive  treat- 
ment of  its  great  subject,  nor  even  to  be  an  original 
contribution  to  it.  It  is  intended  as  an  outline  or  intro- 
duction for  those  who  are  beginning  the  study,  and  who 
have  no  special  critical  or  theological  knowledge.  The 
aim  throughout  has  been  to  summarise  the  results  of 
modern  investigation  from  the  constructive  standpoint, 
and  to  show  that  when  criticism  has  had  its  perfect 
work  enough  remains  for  faith  and  devotion.  The 
subject  is  one  which  raises  many  problems  of  which 
no  final  solution  is  possible  in  the  present  state  of 
our  knowledge.  The  writer  would  acknowledge  his 
obligations  to  many  modern  writers  on  the  period,  to 
some  of  whom  reference  is  made  in  these  pages,  and 
among  them  especially  to  his  old  teacher,  Dr.  Sanday 
of  Oxford,  to  whom  all  students  of  the  New  Testament 
owe  an  incalculable  debt. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

INTRODUCTION    I. — THE    SOURCES  ...  I 

INTRODUCTION     II. THE     SOCIAL     AND     POLITICAL 

CONDITIONS l6 

CHAP- 

I.    THE    BIRTH,     BOYHOOD,     AND    EDUCATION    OF 

JESUS 23 

II.    THE    BEGINNING    OF    THE    MINISTRY         .  .  34 

III.  THE  CALL   AND    COMMISSION  OF  THE   TWELVE         46 

IV.  THE    MIRACLES      .  .  .  .  •  -57 
V.    THE    TEACHING      ......  69 

VI.  THE  TEACHING  {continued)   .         .  .  .82 

VII.    THE  TEACHING    {concludcd)     ....  94 

VIII.    THE  ACTIVE    MINISTRY  ....       I07 

IX.    THE  ACTIVE    MINISTRY    {continued)  .  .121 

X.    THE  TRIAL    AND    DEATH    OF    JESUS  .  •       I36 

XI.    THE  RESURRECTION    AND    ASCENSION      .  .       147 

XII.    THE  CHARACTER    AND    WORK    OF    JESUS  .       157 

INDEX 171 

viii 


THE    LIFE    AND    TEACHING 
OF   JESUS    CHRIST 

INTRODUCTION   I 

THE   SOURCES 

To  write  a  life  of  Jesus  Christ  is  an  almost  impossible 
task.  We  do  not  possess  the  necessary  materials.  The 
New  Testament  records  are  not  a  "  life,"  but  a  Gospel. 
The  purpose  of  the  writers  was  not  strictly  biographical, 
but  evangelical.  They  were  concerned,  not  so  much 
with  the  details  of  Christ's  earthly  career  as  with  the 
interpretation  of  them — with  the  moral  to  be  drawn  from 
tnem.  This  was  all  that  their  circumstances  required  them 
to  do,  and  it  was  sufficient  for  their  immediate  purpose. 
But  it  is  apt  to  be  embarrassing  to  those  whose  modern 
passion  for  facts  leads  them  to  judge  of  every  ancient 
record  by  the  scientific  accuracy  of  its  statements. 
The  science  of  Biblical  criticism  has  shown  us  how 
impossible  it  is  to  judge  the  New  Testament  writings 


LIFE    OF    CHRIST 


from  this  standpoint,  and  has  at  the  same  time  vindicated 
their  claim  to  give  a  sufficient  and  credible  account  of 
the  facts. 

Our  materials  for  the  life  of  Jesus  are  derived  from 
the  four  canonical  Gospels.  Their  witness  is  con- 
firmed by  other  New  Testament  writings,  but  outside 
of  these  little  or  nothing  of  importance  is  to  be  found. 
The  Gospels  themselves  have  for  many  years  been 
subject  to  criticism  and  scrutiny  of  the  most  searching 
kind.  This  is  not  over  yet,  and  it  may  have  further 
and  unexpected  developments ;  but  at  the  present 
moment  it  is  true  to  say  that  the  Gospels  have 
emerged  from  the  ordeal  in  a  far  stronger  position 
than  was  at  one  time  to  ought  possible,  and  that  their 
general  historicity  and  credibility  have  not  been  shaken, 
at  least  in  the  eyes  of  those  who  will  approach  the 
whole  investigation  with  an  open  mind.  There  is  a 
certain  advantage  in  the  fact  that  the  writers  were 
simple,  untutored  men,  who  set  down  their  impressions 
not  by  any  means  as  trained  observers,  but  rather  as 
believers  who  wished  to  convey  to  others  the  message 
they  had  themselves  received.  They  knew  nothing  of 
historical  science  or  of  the  value  of  evidence,  but  their 
very  naivete  enabled  them  to  draw  a  picture  the 
verisimilitude  of  which,  in  its  main  outlines  at  least, 
cannot  be  questioned. 


THE    SOURCES 


It  is  now  generally  agreed  that  the  earliest  of  the 
first  three  Gospels,  commonly  called  the  Synoptics,  is 
that  which  goes  by  the  name  of  St.  Mark.  Both  the 
others  are  based  upon  it  as  their  main  source,  though 
each  of  them  uses  other  material  drawn  from  a  lost 
common  source,  now  known  as  Q — Quelle^  the  German 
for  source.  There  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  doubt- 
ing the  tradition  that  the  author  of  this  Gospel  was 
John  Mark,  the  companion  of  Peter.  It  may  be 
dated  in  the  period  between  a.d.  70  and  80,  and  in 
the  forty  years  between  the  death  of  Jesus  and  the 
earlier  of  these  dates  there  was  probably  no  written 
Gospel.  To  that  time,  however,  may  be  assigned 
many  of  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  and  probably  certain 
fugitive  portions  of  Evangelic  narrative,  such  as  the 
collection  of  Messianic  prophecies  in  St.  Matthew, 
which  are  supposed  to  have  formed  a  document  in 
themselves,  written  originally  in  Hebrew.  The  charac- 
teristics of  St.  Mark's  Gospel  are  familiar  to  every 
reader  of  the  New  Testament.  It  bears  every  sign  of 
being  "  primitive,"  in  its  frank  and  rapid  narrative  and 
its  use  of  uncommon  and  unconventional  expressions. 
The  internal  evidence  drawn  from  its  style  and  language 
makes  it  very  unlikely  that  the  Gospel,  as  we  have  it, 
is  a  recension  of  any  older  literary  source.  For  this 
reason    St.    Mark    may   be    regaided    as    an    historical 


LIFE    OF    CHRIST 


document  of  considerable  value.  This  impression  is 
enhanced  by  detailed  study  of  it,  which  shows  that  it 
gives  a  consistent  and  credible  account  of  the  appear- 
ance and  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ,  that  it  fits  in  with 
the  known  social  and  political  history  of  the  time,  and 
that  it  is  more  concerned  with  setting  forth  the  facts 
in  regard  to  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus,  than  with 
forming  theories  or  conclusions  with  regard  to  them.  It 
is  on  such  grounds  as  these  that  Professor  Burkitt,  one 
of  the  latest  and  most  illuminating  writers  on  the  sub- 
ject, concludes  that  "  In  St.  Mark  we  are  appreciably 
nearer  to  the  actual  scenes  of  our  Lord's  life,  to  the 
course  of  events,  than  in  any  other  document  which 
tells  us  of  Him,  and  therefore,  if  we  want  to  begin  at 
the  beginning  and  reconstruct  the  portrait  of  Christ 
for  ourselves,  we  must  start  from  the  Gospel  of  Mark. 
The  other  Gospels,  even  the  Gospels  according  to 
Matthew  and  Luke,  give  us  an  interpretation  of  Jesus 
Christ's  life.  An  interpretation  may  be  helpful,  illumi- 
nating, even  inspired,  but  it  remains  an  interpretation. 
The  thing  that  actually  occurred  was  the  life  which 
Jesus  Christ  lived,  and  our  chief  authority  for  the  facts 
of  that  life  is  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark."  ^     Thus 

1  "  The  Gospel  History  and  its  Transmission,"  by  F.  Crawford 
Burkitt,  M.A. 


THE    SOURCES 


a  critical  examination  of  this  Gospel  discovers  nothing 
inconsistent  with  the  ancient  saying,  quoted  by  Eusebius 
from  Papias,  to  the  effect  that  "  Mark,  having  become 
the  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  down  accurately,  but  not 
in  order,  whatever  he  remembered  of  the  things  said 
or  done  by  Christ." 

St.  Matthew's  Gospel  stands  on  a  somewhat  different 
footing,  and  may  be  described  as  an  interpretation  of 
Jesus  rather  than  a  life.  It  may  be  dated  from  a.d.  90 
to  100,  and  it  is  coloured  by  the  fact  that  the  writer  has 
an  aim  beyond  that  of  simply  setting  forth  the  story  of 
Jesus.  The  Gospel  contains  practically  the  whole  of  St. 
Mark,  with  some  few  omissions  and  changes  of  order, 
and  a  considerable  number  of  alterations  in  style  and 
phrase.  These  changes  are  mostly  such  as  would  be 
natural  in  any  attempt  to  re-write  so  homely  and  un- 
studied a  story  as  that  in  St.  Mark,  and  everywhere 
testify  to  the  greater  accuracy  of  the  earlier  account. 
The  original  contribution  of  St.  Matthew  to  the  story  of 
Jesus  consists  of  what  is  termed  a  collection  of  Logia 
or  Sayings.  This  is  generally  regarded  as  an  Apostolic 
record  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  It  was  written  at 
first  in  Aramaic,  may  be  dated  not  later  than  a.d.  70, 
and  is  of  the  utmost  value  as  a  record  of  the  teach- 
ing of  our  Lord.  In  all  probability  St.  Mark  had 
access  to  a  Greek  translation  of  it,  or  of  parts  of  it,  but 


LIFE    OF    CHRIST 


it  appears  in  much  fuller  form  in  Matthew.  The  say- 
ings in  their  original  dress  were  probably  preserved 
in  connection  with  parable  or  miracle,  or  as  short, 
detached  oracles.  In  Matthew  many  of  these  latter 
have  been  pieced  together  into  set  discourses.  In 
addition  to  these  there  are  also  peculiar  to  Matthew 
the  narratives  of  the  Infancy,  and  the  account  of  the 
appearances  of  our  Lord  after  the  Resurrection,  with 
certain  other  minor  incidents.  These  represent  tradi- 
tion at  a  later  stage  than  we  find  it  in  Mark,  and  bear 
traces  of  the  tendency  to  lay  stress  on  the  Divine 
elements  in  the  story  of  Jesus  and  to  minimise  the 
purely  human.  Matthew  also  represents  more  clearly 
than  Mark  the  atmosphere  and  thought  of  the  early 
Church,  especially  on  its  Jewish  side.  This  is  seen 
chiefly  in  the  desire  to  find  a  fulfilment  of  Hebrew 
prophecy  in  many  of  the  incidents  of  the  life  of  Jesus. 
It  is  not,  however,  sufficient  to  warrant  the  summary 
conclusion  that  all  such  narratives  are  merely  the 
creation  of  the  consciousness  of  the  Church,  and  have 
no  basis  in  actual  history.  It  may  be  said,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  those  portions  of  Matthew  which  do 
not  belong  either  to  Mark  or  the  Logia  are  later,  and 
therefore  not  of  the  same  historical  value  as  those  which 
are  found  in  the  two  main  sources.  They  point  us  to 
traditions  of  the  Church  which  were  already  becoming 


THE    SOURCES 


fixed,    and    therefore    had,    in   all    probability,    history 
behind  them. 

One  of  the  chief  gains  of  more  recent  New  Testament 
criticism  has  been  the  success  of  the  attempt  to 
rehabilitate  the  historicity  of  Luke.  Without  accepting 
all  that  is  claimed  for  him  by  Professors  Ramsay  and 
Harnack,  we  may  confidently  say  that  the  work  of 
St.  Luke  is  that  of  an  expert  writer,  and  one  who, 
so  far  as  his  materials  allowed  him,  was  a  painstaking 
and  accurate  historian.  We  need  have  no  hesitation 
in  assigning  the  Third  Gospel  to  the  companion  of 
St.  Paul,  "  the  beloved  physician,"  who  was  also  the 
compiler  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  A  large  part 
of  the  material  for  this  latter  work  was  found  in  a 
diary  of  his  own,  written  in  early  life,  and  known  to  us 
as  the  "  We  sections "  of  the  book.  So  far  as  the 
Gospel  is  concerned,  St.  Luke  follows  largely  the  order 
of  Mark,  with  certain  additions  and  interpolations  of 
his  own,  e.g.  the  two  introductory  chapters,  and  some 
additions  to  the  appearances  of  our  Lord  after  the 
Resurrection,  also  the  passages  chap.  vii.  20  to  chap.  viii. 
3,  and  chap.  ix.  51  to  chap,  xviii.  14.  From  these 
latter  it  is  assumed  that,  in  addition  to  Mark  and  the 
Logia,  St.  Luke  had  before  him  a  third  source  peculiar 
to  himself,  sometimes  called  the  Perean  Gospel,  and 
that  to  this  source  belong  not  only  the  special  sections 


8  LIFE    OF    CHRIST 

of  his  Gospel,  but  much  of  the  early  portion  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles.  This  gives  us  a  third  main 
source  for  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  one  of  great  value 
especially  for  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  The  date  of  Luke 
may  be  placed  roughly  about  a.d.  igo. 

We  pass  now  to  the  consideration  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  which  presents  an  historical  and  critical  pro- 
blem more  complex  and  difficult  even  than  that  of 
the  Synoptics.  Opinions  are  still  divided  with  regard 
to  it,  and  on  some  fundamental  points  the  division  is 
complete.  The  date  of  the  Gospel  is  probably  between 
A.D.  ICO  and  no.  This  would  not  be  incompatible 
with  the  traditional  authorship  by  John  the  Apostle, 
supposing  that  he  wrote  in  extreme  old  age.  There 
is  external  second-century  testimony  for  this  authorship 
to  which  some  weight  has  to  be  attached,  and  there 
may  be  added  to  it  the  internal  evidence  that  the  writer 
was  a  Jew,  and  was  probably  connected  with  a  Saddu- 
cean  or  priestly  family,  that  he  was  well  acquainted 
with  Jerusalem,  and  that  he  had  either  first-hand 
knowledge  himself  of  many  of  the  events  which  he 
relates,  or  had  access  to  sources  which  possessed  such 
knowledge.  He  writes  also  as  one  to  whom  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  are  familiar,  and  who  is  in  a  position 
to  take  for  granted  on  the  part  of  his  readers  a  know- 
ledge of  certain  leading  persons  and  events  in  the  life 


THE    SOURCES 


of  Jesus.  On  the  other  hand  is  to  be  set  the  fact  that 
the  picture  of  Jesus  and  His  teaching  given  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  is  altogether  different  from  that  of  the 
three  other  Evangelists.  Instead  of  that  gradual  unfold- 
ing of  the  Messianic  consciousness  which  we  find  in  the 
Synoptic  writers,  the  Jesus  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  shows 
at  the  outset  that  He  regards  Himself  as  the  Son  of 
God  and  the  destined  Saviour  of  the  World.  The  long 
discourses  which  the  Gospel  contains  have  as  their 
theme  not  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  in  Matthew 
and  Luke,  but  rather  the  Person  of  the  Christ  Himself, 
and  the  various  relations  in  which  He  stands  to  His 
disciples  and  to  the  world.  At  times  this  teaching 
is  cast  in  a  form  which  can  only  come  from  one 
who  was  at  least  acquainted  with  that  type  of  Alex- 
andrian speculative  philosophy  which  we  find  in  the 
writings  of  Philo.  The  general  impression  produced 
by  all  this  is  that  we  have  here  the  writing  of  one  who 
was  looking  back  upon  the  career  and  teaching  of  Jesus 
Christ  from  a  distance,  and  who  was  concerned  not  so 
much  to  give  a  history  of  events  as  an  explanation  of 
them,  and  who  wrote  in  order  to  persuade  those  who 
should  read  his  words  that  Jesus  was  indeed  the  Christ, 
and  that  a  certain  conception  of  His  Person,  and  only 
one,  could  be  legitimately  held  by  those  who  called 
themselves  Christians.     It  is  urged  by  some  that  all  this 


lo  LIFE    OF    CHRIST 

is  sufficiently  explained  on  the  supposition  that  the 
Apostle  John  lived  to  an  extreme  old  age,  and  wrote  his 
Gospel  with  a  long  experience  of  the  history  of  the 
Church  behind  him,  and  in  view  of  certain  special 
conditions  and  difficulties  at  Ephesus  in  his  own  day. 
Many  scholars,  on  the  other  hand,  consider  that  the  gulf 
which  separates  John  the  beloved  disciple  from  the 
philosopher  and  theologian  who  wrote  the  Gospel  is 
too  wide  to  be  thus  easily  bridged.  The  question  is 
still  sub  jiidice,  and  will  be  settled  by  each  student  of 
the  Gospel  for  himself  according  to  his  training  and 
predilections. 

Important  and  interesting  as  this  question  of  author- 
ship is,  it  does  not  vitally  affect  our  conception  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  as  a  source  for  the  life  and  teaching  of 
Jesus.  Historically  the  material  here  is  not  so  valuable 
as  that  which  we  find  in  the  Synoptic  writers.  But,  as 
has  been  noted  above,  there  are  incidents  where  the 
writer  betrays  a  first-hand  knowledge  which  enables  us 
to  supplement  and  even  correct  the  Synoptic  narrative 
with  his  help.  As  a  whole,  however,  the  Gospel  is 
rather  valuable  for  the  evidence  it  gives  of  the  exalted 
place  which  Jesus  had  come  to  occupy  in  the  thought  of 
the  Christian  Church  at  a  very  early  stage  in  its  history. 
The  idea  of  His  work  and  Person  here  put  forth,  though 
different   from   that  in  the  earlier  Gospels,   is   really  a 


THE    SOURCES 


development  from  it.  There  is  nothing  radically  in- 
compatible between  the  two.  The  roots  of  the  fourth 
are  to  be  found  in  the  first  three.  It  is  important  to 
remember  this  in  studying  the  discourses,  especially  where 
the  distinction  between  the  actual  words  of  Jesus  and  the 
thought  of  the  writer  is  not  easy  to  maintain.  It  must  be 
admitted  that,  though  the  thought  may  be  the  thought  of 
Jesus,  the  words  are  the  words  of  the  Evangelist.  The 
presentation  of  our  Lord's  character  and  aims  recalls 
the  Pauline  Christology,  and  is  most  useful  for  deter- 
mining the  thought  of  the  Church  on  these  great  themes. 
It  was  because  this  Gospel  satisfied  the  Church's  require- 
ments in  this  respect  that  it  found  its  way  into  the  Canon. 
Professor  Burkitt  well  sums  up  the  whole  position  as 
follows  :  "  The  Fourth  Gospel  is  the  work  of  one  to 
whom  belief  in  Jesus  Christ  w^as  not  a  new  external 
condition  impressed  upon  him  from  without,  after  his 
mind  had  already  acquired  its  individual  characteristics. 
He  had  long  been  conscious,  we  may  be  sure,  of  the 
presence  of  the  Paraclete  within  him,  guiding  him  into 
all  truth  as  to  the  inner  meaning  of  the  life  and  light 
which  came  into  the  w^orld  when  the  Word  of  God  was 
manifested,  not  perhaps  without  some  admixture  of 
ancestral  disdain  for  the  materialistic  superstition  of  the 
masses,  both  of  believers  and  unbelievers.  And  now  in 
his  old  age,  when  the  popular  expectations  had  proved 


LIFE    OF    CHRIST 


false,  as  he  knew  they  would,  and  the  Antichrist  that  was 
to  come  and  set  up  his  impious  kingdom  a  little  before 
the  end  had  not,  after  all,  made  his  appearance,  he  finds 
himself  confronted  by  new  dangers  from  the  other  side. 
Other  thinkers,  more  spiritual  (as  they  would  consider) 
than  he,  are  saying  that  the  Son  of  God  was  not  a  real 
man  at  all,  for  flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  king- 
dom of  God.  This  to  the  Evangelist  was  the  greatest 
error;  to  deny  the  coming  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the 
flesh  was  the  doctrine  of  Antichrist.  The  Fourth 
Gospel  is  written  to  prove  the  reality  of  Jesus  Christ. 
But  the  Evangelist  was  no  historian  :  ideas,  not  events, 
were  to  him  the  true  realities,  and  if  we  go  to  his 
work  to  learn  the  course  of  events  we  shall  only  be 
disappointed  in  our  search." 

There  is  very  little  material  for  the  history  of  Jesus 
Christ  outside  the  canonical  Gospels.  References  in 
Pagan  historians  are  scanty  in  the  extreme,  and  do  no 
more  than  indicate  that  such  a  person  as  Jesus  existed, 
and  was  put  to  death  under  Pilate.  The  remaining 
books  of  the  New  Testament  throw  some  light  on  the 
teaching  of  Jesus,  but  their  chief  function  is  to  testify  to 
the  impressions  and  opinions  regarding  Him  and  His 
work  which  were  held  by  His  followers  in  the  early  Church. 
The  same  is  true  of  those  fragments  of  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  which  have  been  recovered  by  the  archaeological 


THE    SOURCES  13 

researches  of  recent  years.  While  it  is  possible  that 
they  may  preserve  some  of  the  actual  sayings  of  Jesus, 
their  main  value  is  as  a  monument  of  the  interpreta- 
tions of  His  teaching  which  were  regarded  as  authori- 
tative in  certain  quarters  and  at  certain  times. 

The  question  remains  as  to  the  trustworthiness  of  our 
sources  for  the  life  of  Jesus.  The  earliest  of  them  was 
not  put  together  in  its  present  form  till  nearly  a  genera- 
tion after  the  Crucifixion.  What  guarantee  is  there  that 
we  are  not  dealing  with  legend,  tradition,  and  hearsay, 
rather  than  with  the  record  of  facts  ?  What  is  there  to 
set  against  the  extreme  view  of  Professor  Schmiedel,  who 
holds  that  the  Evangelic  records  are  utterly  unhistorical, 
and  that  they  have  preserved  for  us  nothing  that  is 
really  credible  about  Jesus  Christ  save  nine  fragmentary 
sayings  ?  Can  we  go  back  into  those  forty  years  pre- 
ceding the  compilation  of  St.  Mark's  Gospel  and  find 
anything  there  that  brings  us  nearer  to  the  facts  ?  The 
answer  to  this  is  that  we  can.  There  are  traces  of 
earlier  documents  containing  records  of  the  things  done 
and  said  by  Jesus.  There  is  the  preaching  of  the 
Apostles,  which  was  uniformly  reminiscent  of  the  life  of 
Jesus.  There  is  the  fact  that  the  Gospels  were  written 
in  order  to  preserve  and  transmit  a  "  deposit "  and  a 
"  witness  '*  which  had  already  reached  fixed  proportions 
and  which  had  carefully  to  be  preserved  from  the  corrup- 


14  LIFEOFCHRIST 

tion  of  alien  elements.  Further,  the  fact  must  not  be 
overlooked  that  in  the  Apostolic  circle  there  were  special 
means  of  keeping  alive  the  "  deposit  "  of  the  memorials 
of  Jesus  Christ.  Oral  tradition  was  a  thing  familiar  to 
the  men  of  Palestine,  and  the  preservation  of  it  had  been 
carried  in  their  schools  to  a  high  pitch  of  perfection. 
The  very  contrast  between  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  the 
Johannine  and  Pauline  interpretations  of  Jesus  is  high 
testimony  to  the  historicity  and  verisimilitude  of  the 
former.  They  content  themselves  with  reporting  what 
had  been  handed  down  to  them.  Their  business  is  not 
to  speculate  or  explain,  but  to  give  such  evidence  as 
they  possess.  And  they  give  it  with  a  simplicity,  and 
sometimes  even  with  an  absence  of  understanding,  that 
proves  their  trustworthiness.  Due  stress  must  also  be 
laid  on  the  character  of  the  picture  of  Jesus  drawn  by 
the  Evangelists.  In  spite  of  the  differences  between 
them,  there  is  a  fundamental  agreement  which  is  most 
impressive.  Nothing  could  be  less  like  the  growth  of 
tradition  and  imagination  than  their  sane  and  unadorned 
narrative.  The  obvious  gaps  in  it  only  serve  to  show 
that  where  they  knew  nothing  they  said  nothing.  They 
reflect  the  bewilderment  which  Jesus  caused  among  His 
contemporaries,  and  there  is  the  very  accent  of  truth  in 
their  record  of  the  development  of  His  Messianic  con- 
sciousness along    lines  that  were   neither  welcome  nor 


THE    SOURCES 


15 


intelligible.  That  they  could  have  invented  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  in  the  form  in  which  they  relate  it  is  frankly 
incredible.  It  is  much  that  they  should  so  have  recorded 
it  that  the  only  possible  comment  is,  "  Nunquam  sic 
locutus  est  homo." 


INTRODUCTION   II 

THE   SOCIAL   AND   POLITICAL   CONDITIONS 

In  the  time  of  Jesus  Christ  Palestine  was  a  Roman 
province,  and  was  broken  up  into  three  administrative 
districts,  Judaea  and  the  tetrarchies  of  Herod  Antipas 
and  Philip.  Judaea  was  made  up  of  Judaea  proper, 
Samaria,  and  Idumaea,  and  was  reckoned  as  an  imperial 
province  of  the  second  class,  and  was  governed  by  a 
procurator  of  equestrian  rank.  This  official  was  vested 
with  full  powers,  fiscal,  military,  and  judicial.  He  was 
himself  responsible  for  collecting  the  taxes,  part  of 
which  were  spent  on  pubHc  improvements  in  the  province 
itself  and  the  remainder  remitted  to  the  imperial  treasury. 
Besides  these  direct  taxes  large  sums  were  obtained  from 
the  people  by  customs  duties.  These,  however,  were 
farmed  out  to  speculators,  who  sold  the  rights  of  col- 
lection. The  collectors  were  the  "publicans"  of  the 
Gospels,  and  were  exposed  to  strong  temptations  to 
abuse  their  position  by  extorting  more  than  their  due, 
and  were  cordially  hated  by  the  common  people.  The 
procurator  had  at  his  disposal  sufficient  troops  to  keep  a 

i6 


SOCIAL    CONDITIONS  17 

firm  hand  over  the  populace.  These  consisted  of  a 
few  legionaries  with  a  number  of  mercenaries,  chiefly 
Samaritans.  He  had  the  power  of  life  and  death,  appeal 
to  Rome  being  only  possible  in  the  case  of  one  who 
had  the  status  of  a  Roman  citizen.  '  All  crimes  involv- 
ing capital  punishment  were  in  his  hands,  but  minor 
offences  were  usually  tried  in  the  local  courts  or  in  the 
Great  Court  (Sanhedrin)  at  Jerusalem.  These  courts 
had  considerable  powers  both  of  jurisdiction  and  of 
administration.  However  little  acceptable  the  Roman 
dominance  might  be  to  the  more  patriotic  Jews  (Zealots 
and  the  like),  it  probably  affected  the  every-day  life  of 
the  people  very  little,  and  certainly  involved  nothing  in 
the  way  of  oppression.  There  was  complete  religious 
tolerance,  and  the  sanctity  of  the  Temple  was  respected. 
This  was  quite  in  accordance  with  the  general  policy  of 
Rome,  and  even  special  favours  (e.g.  the  omission  of 
the  emperor's  head  from  the  copper  coinage  and  the 
recognition  of  the  Sabbath)  seem  to  have  been  granted 
to  the  Jew^s  on  account  of  their  known  religious  zeal. 
The  Jerusalem  Sanhedrin  under  the  Roman  rule  be- 
came a  very  important  body.  It  had  judicial  powers 
throughout  Judaea,  could  arrest,  try,  and  condemn 
offenders  to  any  punishment  except  death.  It  met 
twice  in  the  week  in  a  building  of  its  own,  and  was  com- 
posed of  seventy-two  members  of  pure  Hebrew  blood. 


LIFE    OF    CHRIST 


The  men  of  the  high-priestly  families  naturally  took  the 
most  important  place  in  its  councils,  and  the  high  priest 
for  the  time  being  was  President.  The  other  members 
were  called  scribes  or  elders.  The  distinction  between 
these  two  classes  strongly  corresponds  to  that  between 
Sadducees  and  Pharisees. 

The  tetrarchy  of  Philip  comprised  the  districts  of 
Batanea,  Gaulonitis,  Trachonitis,  Auronitis,  and  Ituraea, 
but  the  exact  geographical  boundaries  of  it  are  unknown. 
The  population  was  mixed,  but  prevailingly  Syrian  and 
Greek.  Philip  was  the  best  of  the  sons  of  Herod,  and 
was  a  mild  and  just  ruler.  Josephus  draws  a  pleasant 
picture  of  his  visits  to  the  towns  of  his  dominion  for 
judicial  purposes.  He  was  a  staunch  friend  to  Rome,  and 
aimed  at  being  the  Father  of  his  people.  He  rebuilt  the  old 
town  of  Panias,  and  gave  it  the  name  of  Caesarea  Philippi. 
After  hisdeath  inA.D.  37  his  tetrarchy  was  given  by  Caligula 
to  Agrippa,  and  raised  to  the  dignity  of  a  kingdom. 

Herod  Antipas  was  a  man  of  very  different  stamp. 
He  was  a  true  son  of  his  father,  crafty,  ambitious,  and 
ostentatious,  the  very  type  of  an  Oriental  ruler.  His 
territory  embraced  Pergea  and  Galilee,  and  was  split  into 
two  parts  by  the  region  called  Decapolis.  Very  little  is 
known  of  Herod's  long  reign  from  B.C.  4  to  a.d.  39. 
Josephus  confirms  the  story  in  the  Gospels  in  regard  to 
his  relations  with  John  the  Baptist  and  Jesus.     Though 


SOCIAL    CONDITIONS  19 

he  gives  political  reasons  and  the  fear  of  sedition  as  the 
ground  for  his  imprisonment  and  beheading  of  John, 
this  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  story  that  it  was  John's 
objection  to  the  marriage  with  Herodias  that  first  roused 
the  tetrarch's  hostility.  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles,  over 
which  Antipas  ruled,  was  the  richest  region  of  Palestine. 
The  upper  part  is  mountainous,  but  Lower  Galilee  con- 
tains undulating  country  and  fine  fertile  plains.  These 
were  thickly  populated,  and  studded  with  vineyards  and 
gardens,  villages  and  towns.  Its  capital  in  our  period 
was  Tiberias,  a  fine  city  built  by  Antipas  after  the  Greek 
model.  Its  inhabitants  were  Gentiles  and  Jews,  the  latter 
predominating,  and  were  a  vigorous,  brave,  and  freedom- 
loving  folk.  Their  moral  standard  was  higher  than  that 
in  other  parts  of  Palestine,  and  though  mainly  farmers 
and  fishermen,  they  were  not  without  ideals,  and  had 
learnt  much  from  contact  with  Graeco-Roman  civilisation. 
The  region  called  Decapolis  w^as  not  in  any  sense  a 
geographical  area,  but  rather  a  confederation  for  military 
and  commercial  purposes  of  Grseco-Roman  cities.  Its 
capital  was  Scythopolis,  and  all  round  it  were  Pella, 
Gadara,  Hippos,  Dium,  Gerasa,  Philadelphia,  Raphana, 
Kanatha,  and  for  a  time  Damascus.  The  sites  of  most 
of  these  towns  are  still  know^n.^     Each  of  them  possessed 

1  Cf.  G.  A.  Smith,  "Historical  Geography  of  the  Holy  Land," 
chap,  xxviii.  • 


20  LIFEOFCHRIST 

considerable  territory,  and  was  a  little  state  in  itself, 
independent  of  procurators  and  tetrarchs  alike.  These 
towns,  and  many  others  like  them  throughout  Palestine 
mentioned  by  Josephus,  were  Hellenistic  in  thought, 
feeling,  language,  and  organisation,  and  some  of  them 
at  least  became  active  centres  of  anti-Semitism  in  the 
later  troubles. 

For  any  clear  understanding  of  New  Testament  times 
it  is  important  to  realise  how  the  whole  Jewish  world 
was  interpenetrated  with  Hellenistic  religion,  customs, 
and  ideals.  Most  Palestinian  Jews  could  speak  Greek 
even  if  they  did  not  read  it,  and  the  Hellenism  which 
made  itself  felt  in  architecture,  music,  commerce,  and 
coinage  touched  their  lives  at  every  point.  Ever  since 
the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  Hellenistic  civilisation  had 
impressed  its  stamp  on  every  department  of  human 
activity.  In  most  of  the  great  towns  were  temples  to 
Greek  gods,  and  public  games  connected  with  religious 
festivals  were  celebrated.  Herod  had  built  a  theatre 
and  an  amphitheatre  even  in  Jerusalem.  We  have  the 
mention  of  stadia,  basilica,  porticoes,  tribunes,  banquet- 
ing halls,  and  baths  after  the  Grseco-Roman  fashion  in 
different  towns.  In  Herod's  Temple  at  Jerusalem  the 
Greek  style  of  architecture  was  largely  followed.  The 
same  influence  was  strongly  felt  in  commerce  and  the 
currency,  in  connection  with  which  most  of  the  names 


SOCIAL    CONDITIONS  21 

that  have  come  down  to  us  are  Greek,  as  are  also  many 
names  for  clothing,  furniture,  and  domestic  utensils. 

This  close  and  constant  contact  with  heathen  influences 
had  a  twofold  effect  on  the  Jewish  life  of  the  period.  On 
the  one  hand  it  meant  a  certain  liberalising  tendency, 
but  on  the  other  it  led  to  a  rigid  and  exclusive  form  of 
nationalism.  These  heathen  surroundings  made  the 
danger  of  weakening  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law  infinitely 
greater  than  it  would  be  in  a  purely  Jewish  community. 
In  view  of  such  a  danger  it  is  not  difficult  to  understand 
the  punctilious  insistence  of  the  Pharisees  on  every  jot 
and  tittle  of  the  Law.  What  to  us  seems  merely  an  ex- 
cessive scrupulosity  was  to  them  the  very  condition  of 
maintaining  the  national  life  and  hope.  Among  the 
rank  and  file  of  the  populace  their  antagonism  to  the 
heathen  powers  kept  alive  that  expectation  and  antici- 
pation of  the  future  which  we  call  Messianic.  In  Judaea 
and  in  the  priestly  circles  in  Jerusalem  this  antagonism 
took  a  strongly  political  complexion.  Outside  Judaea  it 
was  perhaps  less  political  but  no  less  real.  Throughout 
the  whole  country  the  chief  guardians  of  the  Law  were 
the  scribes.  They  developed,  systematised,  and  ad- 
ministered the  ordinances  of  Moses,  and  taught  them 
in  every  local  synagogue.  They  were  regarded  with 
extraordinary  reverence,  and  obtained  a  real  hold  of  the 
popular  mind.     To  them,  perhaps,  more   than  to  any 


LIFE    OF    CHRIST 


other  single  influence  is  to  be  attributed  the  fact  that 
Judaism  did  not  entirely  disappear. 

The  study  of  these  external  conditions  of  the  life  of 
Jesus  is  important  and  useful  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
the  historicity  of  the  Gospels  is  still  roundly  denied  by 
some  scholars.  Men  like  J.  M.  Robertson  in  this 
country,  and  Kalthoff  of  Bremen,  and  others,  seek  to 
explain  away  the  whole  historical  foundation  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  resolve  the  story  of  Jesus  into  a  mere  collec- 
tion of  myths.  But  the  Gospels  are  too  deeply  rooted 
in  contemporary  history  to  give  such  an  attempt  the 
least  chance  of  success,  except  with  those  who  allow 
their  prejudices  to  blind  them  to  the  facts.  The  Gospels 
are  open  to  criticism,  as  are  all  ancient  documents,  and 
must  be  judged  by  the  canons  applied  to  all  contem- 
porary literature.  They  do  not  need  to  fear  any  such 
tests,  which,  though  they  may  modify  some  of  our  pre- 
conceptions regarding  them,  cannot  destroy  their  local 
colouring  or  their  historical  background.  The  more 
closely  they  are  studied  in  relation  to  the  period  of 
which  they  speak  and  the  period  at  which  they  were 
composed,  the  more  impossible  does  it  become  to 
regard  them  as  productions  of  the  imagination.  The 
foundation  of  fact  on  which  they  are  built  cannot  be 
concealed. 


CHAPTER     I 

THE    BIRTH,  BOYHOOD,   AND   EDUCATION 
OF   JESUS 

The  story  of  the  Nativity  is  not  found  in  the  earliest 
record  of  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ.  St.  Mark's  Gospel 
knows  nothing  of  it,  it  is  not  mentioned  by  St.  Paul, 
and  even  the  Fourth  Gospel,  which  insists  strongly  on 
the  Divine  origin  and  pre-existence  of  Jesus,  makes 
no  allusion  to  it.  The  two  accounts  given  in  the  Gospels 
of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  do  not  agree  in  all  parti- 
culars and  present  some  very  remarkable  features.  The 
genealogies  trace  the  descent  of  Jesus  through  Joseph 
and  not  through  Mary.  But  both  accounts  represent 
Jesus  as  born  of  a  Virgin,  and  born  according  to  promise, 
though  in  the  one  case  the  promise  is  made  to  Joseph 
and  in  the  other  to  Mary.  Attempts  to  harmonise 
these  discrepancies  are  altogether  useless.  The  situation 
is  best  understood  by  considering  the  way  in  which  the 
stories  arose,  and  the  circumstances  which  gave  rise  to 
them. 


24  LIFEOFCHRIST 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  through  the  whole  cf 
His  public  career,  Jesus  was  regarded  as  the  son  cf 
Joseph  and  Mary.  "  Is  not  this  the  carpenter's  son?  '' 
"  Is  not  this  Jesus,  whose  father  and  mother  we 
know?"  St.  Luke  speaks  more  than  once  of  "His 
parents,"  and  makes  His  mother  say,  "Thy  father  anc 
I  have  sought  thee  sorrowing."  ^  A  very  little  reflection 
will  show  that  no  other  view  was  possible  to  the  con- 
temporaries of  Jesus.  At  the  same  time  it  is  evident 
that  within  the  circle  of  the  Holy  Family  there  was  a 
consciousness  of  mystery  surrounding  Jesus,  and  of  a 
mystery  that  had  to  do  with  His  birth.  We  are  told 
that  His  mother  "  kept  all  these  sayings,  pondering 
them  in  her  heart "  (Luke  ii.  19,  51),  and  she  had  reason 
for  doing  so.  It  must  have  been  from  her  in  the  first 
instance  that  the  true  story  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  came ; 
and  Professor  Ramsay  is  probably  right  in  assuming 
that  St.  Luke's  account  of  the  Nativity  was  obtained 
from  Mary  herself.  As  he  says,  "  There  is  a  womanly 
spirit  in  the  whole  narrative,  which  seems  inconsistent 
with  the  transmission  from  man  to  man,  and  which, 
moreover,  is  an  indication  of  Luke's  character ;  he  had 
a  marked  sympathy  with  women."  St.  Matthew's  account 
represents  more  strictly  the  man's  point  of  view,  and  is, 
no  doubt,  that  which  was  more  generally  current  among 
^  Cf.  Matt.  xii.  23  ;  Mark  iii.  21,  32,  xii.  35;  John  i.   13. 


THE    BIRTH    OF    JESUS  25 

the  friends  and  contemporaries  of  Jesus.  It  must  be 
remembered  that  the  great  problem  of  the  life  of  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  fact  that  the  men  who  consorted  with  Him 
during  His  days  on  earth  came  to  so  sure  and  strong 
a  belief  in  His  Divine  nature  and  power,  and  that  this 
belief  took  so  firm  a  hold  in  the  very  earliest  days  of 
the  Christian  Church.  To  these  men  the  fact  that 
Jesus  should  have  come  into  the  world  in  a  fashion 
different  from  that  of  the  ordinary  children  of  men,  was 
a  natural  and  even  necessary  thing.  Their  account  of 
it  is  altogether  higher  than  those  of  other  theogonies. 
There  is  a  reticence,  and  so  a  verisimilitude,  about  it 
which  these  do  not  possess.  And,  to-day,  belief  in  the 
Virgin  Birth,  while  it  may  not  be  necessary  to  belief  in 
the  Divinity  of  Christ,  is  to  many  a  natural  concomitant 
of  this  latter  belief — a  lesser  wonder  covered  by  the 
greater.  It  is  from  this  standpoint  that  the  world  still 
gathers  in  awe  round  the  cradle  in  the  stable  at 
Bethlehem,  and  still  Hstens  with  adoration  to  the  angels' 
song. 

It  is  needless  to  do  more  than  summarise  the  well- 
known  narrative.  Jesus  came  in  the  fulness  of  the 
times,  and  there  were  hints  and  anticipations  of  His 
coming.  Zacharias  and  Elizabeth,  Anna  and  Simeon, 
were  but  types  of  the  devout  souls  who  looked  for 
the  consolation  of  Israel.     It  is  true  that  hope  often 


26  LIFEOFCHRIST 

becomes  the  father  of  events  and  shapes  them  to  its 
own  liking.  But  there  was  little  scope  for  that  here. 
Indeed,  one  marvels  at  the  insight  and  penetration  which 
could  discover  the  Divine  purpose  in  such  unpromising 
surroundings.  Simple  folk  like  Joseph  and  Mary  may 
well  have  been  bewildered  by  what  happened  to  them ; 
and  it  is  safe  to  say  that  the  birth  in  Bethlehem,  the 
visit  of  the  wise  men,  the  testimony  of  the  shepherds, 
the  wrath  of  Herod,  and  the  flight  into  Egypt,  all  became 
more  significant  in  retrospect.  The  Evangelic  records 
abound  in  suggestions  that  even  those  who  were  nearest 
to  Jesus  failed  to  understand  Him  during  His  lifetime, 
and  were  quite  unable  even  to  take  Him  at  His  own 
valuation.  To  them  the  proof  of  His  Divine  claims 
was  cumulative,  and  the  wonders  of  the  childhood  of 
Jesus  were  only  appreciated  by  those  who  looked  back 
upon  them  in  the  light  of  His  maturer  years.  The 
impelling  motive  in  all  these  stories  is,  as  Neumann 
says,  "  the  idea  that  there  was  in  Jesus's  character,  so 
far  as  we  can  rediscover  it,  an  underivable  element 
which  throws  us  back  upon  God — the  great  original 
element  of  religious  genius.  In  this  sense  the  cradle 
of  the  child  who  to-day  is  claimed  as  belonging  to  the 
whole  world,  was  overshadowed  by  God." 

Of  the  boyhood   of  Jesus  we  know  very  little,  and 
no  attempts  to  pierce  the  haze  that  surrounds  His  earlier 


THE    BOYHOOD    OF    JESUS         27 

years  can  be  very  successful.  What  little  is  told  us 
in  the  Gospels  stands  in  vivid  contrast  to  those  apocryphal 
stories  found  in  writings  outside  the  New  Testament. 
Those  who  believe  that  there  is  a  large  legendary 
element  in  the  Gospels  themselves,  have  always  to  settle 
the  problem  presented  by  the  contrast  between  the 
Gospel  narratives  and  those  other,  later,  and  obviously 
legendary  accounts  of  Jesus.  In  the  one  case  are  to  be 
found  the  wildest  and  most  fantastic  imaginings ;  in  the 
other  a  simple,  reticent,  straightforward  tale.^  That  Jesus 
grew  and  waxed  strong,  that  the  grace  of  God  was  upon 
Him,  and  that  He  increased  in  favour  with  God  and 
men  (Euke  ii.  40,  52),  sums  up  all  that  we  know  of 
His  early  years.  That  He  met  with  the  doctors  in  the 
Temple,  and  astonished  them  with  His  wisdom,  and 
felt  Himself  some  foretaste  of  His  future  work  in 
doing  so,  is  a  natural  enough  episode,  and  one  that 
we  most  probably  owe  to  the  fond  pride  of  the  mother 
who  "  kept  all  these  sayings  in  her  heart."  It  is  possible, 
however,  to  do  something  to  fill  in  the  bare  outlines 
of  the  New  Testament  narrative.  There  is  a  legitimate 
function  for  the  historical  imagination,  and  in  the 
physical  surroundings  of  His  home,  and  in  the  general 

^  The  fact  that  some  length  of  time  separates  the  two  classes 
of  narrative  is  all  in  favour  of  the  historicity  of  the  Gospels. 
Legends  take  time  to  grow. 


28  LIFEOFCHRIST 

conditions  of  Jewish  life  in  His  time,  much  may  be 
found  that  throws  light  on  the  early  years  of  Jesus. 
No  careful  student  of  His  teaching  can  be  blind 
to  the  fact  that  He  had  lived  with  eyes  wide  open 
to  the  various  influences  of  His  day.  He  could  meet 
the  scribes  on  their  own  ground  and  speak  to  them 
in  their  own  tongue,  but  He  was  equally  at  home  with 
the  common  people.  He  had  shared  their  experiences, 
and  they  '-'  heard  Him  gladly."  Nor  can  we  doubt 
that  His  soul  was  keenly  sensitive  to  those  physical 
influences  which  play  so  large  a  part  in  moulding 
thought  and  character.  The  Galilee  in  which  Jesus 
was  brought  up  was  a  fair  and  fertile  land — a  very 
garden  for  beauty  and  delight.  But  it  was  populous 
too,  full  of  cities  and  villages,  so  that  wherever  one 
journeyed  it  was  easy  to  gather  a  crowd.  And  every 
place  in  it  was  instinct  with  historical  associations. 
Nazareth,  where  the  boyhood  of  Jesus  was  spent, 
in  spite  of  its  evil  name  among  the  people  of  Galilee, 
was  a  lovely  spot.  With  its  white  limestone  houses 
nestling  amid  the  vine-clad  hills,  it  has  been  aptly 
compared  to  a  jewel  in  its  setting.  From  those  hills 
was  visible  a  scene,  which  to  every  Jew  suggested 
stirring  memories  of  undying  hopes.  A  modern 
scholar  and  traveller  describes  it  thus  :  "  Before  us 
lay  the  great  plain  of  Megiddo,  and  opposite  us,  from 


THE    BOYHOOD    OF    JESUS         29 

the  southern  edge  of  the  plain,  rose  the  mountain-land 
of  Central  Palestine.  Away  to  the  right  we  saw  Mount 
Carmel  closing  the  valley  on  the  west  and  dividing  it 
from  the  plain  of  Sharon.  On  the  left  the  eastern 
view  was  closed  and  the  plain  was  narrowed  by  Mount 
Tabor,  Mount  Moreh  (round  whose  slopes  lay  Nain, 
Endor,  Shunem,  and  Jezreel),  and  Mount  Gilboa. 
Nowhere,  not  even  from  the  summit  of  the  Mount 
of  Olives,  with  Jerusalem  before  and  the  Dead  Sea 
behind,  has  the  historian  or  the  philosophic  thinker  a 
more  inspiring  and  impressive  view  than  that  from 
the  brow  south  of  Nazareth."  ^  The  valley  of  Megiddo 
w^as  one  of  the  natural  highways  of  Palestine,  the  great 
road  from  the  coast  eastward.  There,  close  by  Nazareth, 
Jesus  as  a  boy  must  have  "watched  the  Roman 
travellers,  merchants,  messengers,  soldiers,  officials, 
going  east  and  returning  west.  He  heard  much  about 
the  glory  and  power  of  the  great  empire,  the  oppressor 
of  the  Hebrews,  which  kept  its  garrison  even  in  the 
Holy  City,  and  made  the  high  priests  of  Jerusalem 
its  slaves.  Nazareth  was  to  Him  like  a  hermitage 
beside  a  great  centre  of  life.  He  could  pass  in  a 
few  moments  from  the  quiet  seclusion  of  His  home 
into  full  view  of  the  busy  world,  and  then  retire 
again  to  peace."  ^  To  these  impressions  must  be 
1  Sir  W.  M.  Ramsay,  "  The  Education  of  Christ,"  p.  49.     ^  ib.  p.  53. 


30  LIFEOFCHRIST 

added  those  which  would  be  obtained  from  the  annual 
journeys  to  Jerusalem.  There  Jesus  was  brought 
into  contact  with  the  life  of  the  Temple  and  the  schools, 
and  the  Gospels  contain  many  suggestions  as  to  His 
intimate  familiarity  with  these  things  and  with  the 
surroundings  of  the  city  itself. 

The  education  of  Jesus  would  be  that  of  an  ordinary 
Jewish  boy  of  His  time.  As  Joseph  and  Mary  were 
devout  people,  it  would  be  begun  in  the  home  with 
that  scrupulous  care  which  the  Law  enjoined.  At  six  or 
seven  years  of  age  Jesus  was  sent  to  the  "  house  of  the 
book,"  the  elementary  school  attached  to  the  synagogue. 
There  He  learnt  to  read  (Luke  iv.  i6)  and  to  write 
(John  viii.  8).  There  too,  and  in  the  synagogue  itself, 
He  would  be  instructed  in  the  Law,  and  become 
familiar  with  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Writings — 
practically  our  Old  Testament.  At  twelve  or  thirteen 
years  of  age  Jesus  became  a  "  son  of  the  Law,"  and 
from  that  time  onwards  the  synagogue  became  more 
and  more  a  familiar  place  to  Him.  There  first,  in  all 
probability.  He  shared  its  services  by  reading  the 
Scripture  appointed  for  the  day,  and  Luke  iv.  i6,  17 
implies  that  it  was  His  habit  so  to  do.  It  is  probable 
that  Jesus  was  not  one  of  those  Jewish  boys  who 
entered  a  Rabbinical  school  or  college  with  the  view  of 
becoming  a  teacher  of  the  Law.     The  one  distinguishing 


THE    EDUCATION    OF    JESUS      31 

feature  of  His  ministry  was  that  He  taught  not  as  do 
the  scribes.  He  had  had  no  training  in  their  methods, 
and  He  was  in  no  sense  one  of  themselves.  Every  well 
brought  up  boy  among  the  Jews  was  taught  a  trade,  and 
Jesus  followed  that  of  Joseph,  and  became  a  carpenter 
and  builder.  It  was  mainly  in  this  work  that  the  years 
of  His  young  manhood  were  spent,  and  it  is  in  vain 
that  we  try  to  penetrate  their  secret.  Dogmatic  con- 
clusions here  are  especially  to  be  avoided.  All  that  we 
can  gather  from  the  Gospel  narratives  goes  to  show  that 
the  manhood  of  Jesus  Christ  developed  along  genuinely 
human  lines.  He  grew  in  wisdom  and  in  stature  as  do 
other  men.  That  there  was  in  Him  something  greater 
than  our  ordinary  human  nature  is  not  to  be  denied. 
But  this  did  not  lift  Him  out  of  the  human  category. 
Indeed,  His  greatness  appears  in  the  use  He  makes  of 
ordinary  human  experiences,  and  in  His  adaptation  of 
Himself  to  ordinary  human  conditions.  No  doubt  we 
are  safe  in  arguing  that  the  habits  of  His  earlier  life 
followed  Him  into  His  maturer  years.  When  we  first 
read  of  His  going  up  into  the  mountain  by  night  to 
pray,  we  need  not  conclude  that  this  was  the  first  time 
He  had  ever  done  anything  of  the  kind.  The  attempts 
which  are  sometimes  made  by  theologians  to  penetrate 
what  is  called  the  self-consciousness  of  Jesus  can  never 
be  very  successful,  save  as  they  follow  strictly  the  line 


32  LIFE    OF    CHRIST 

of  His  own  thought  and  teaching.  But  we  shall  not  go 
far  wrong  if  we  believe  that  in  those  silent  years  prayer 
and  communion  with  His  Father  formed  the  regular 
discipline  of  His  soul,  and  prepared  Him  for  that  work 
which  He  had  come  into  the  world  to  do. 

The  training  of  Jesus  was  thus  a  fit  preparation  for 
His  ministry.  Granted  that  He  had  an  unique  power 
of  using  the  opportunities  presented  to  Him,  those 
opportunities  w^ere  just  such  as  the  special  character  of 
His  work  required.  In  recognising  the  world-wide  scope 
of  the  work  and  teaching  of  our  Lord,  and  its  curious 
adaptability  to  humanity  as  such,  we  must  never  lose 
sight  of  the  strictly  limited  conditions  under  which  that 
work  was  done,  and  of  the  equally  limited  forms  under 
which  the  teaching  was  presented  to  the  world.  Jesus 
was  a  man  of  His  time  first,  that  He  might  become  the 
man  for  all  time.  He  knew  His  own  people,  their  life, 
their  learning,  their  occupations,  their  needs,  their  sins, 
and  they  became  in  His  hands  types  of  humanity  at 
large.  His  early  surroundings  were  those  of  the  cheerful 
every-day  life  of  His  time.  There  was  no  trace  of 
asceticism,  in  the  sense  of  alienation  from  the  world,  in 
His  upbringing,  just  as  there  is  no  trace  of  it  in  His  spirit 
in  maturer  years.  He  was  a  man  of  the  people.  He 
loved  His  folk,  and  He  shared  their  busy  life  and  simple 
occupations.     But  He  had  a  soul  above  them,  and  saw  a 


THE    EDUCATION    OF    JESUS      33 

meaning  in  it  all  that  His  contemporaries  could  not  see. 
His  love  of  nature,  and  the  simple  and  beautiful  expres- 
sion which  He  gives  to  it  in  His  later  teaching,  marks 
Him  out  at  once  as  having  a  certain  originality  in 
His  point  of  view,  and  this  is  characteristic  of  His 
whole  outlook  upon  things. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MINISTRY 

The  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ  began  with  His  Baptism  at 
the  hands  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  with  His  Temptation 
in  the  wilderness.  At  His  baptism  He  showed  Himself 
conscious  of  the  fact  that  He  had  come  into  the  world 
to  fulfil  a  great  mission,  and  in  His  temptation  He 
recognised  that  the  work  was  to  be  done  not  after  any 
human  plans  but  in  strict  accordance  with  the  will  of 
God.  These  two  experiences  are  very  closely  allied,  and 
may  be  reckoned  as  the  definite  setting  apart  of  Jesus  to 
His  life's  work. 

John  the  Baptist  was  the  last  of  the  prophets  (Matt.  xi. 
9),  and  in  many  respects  he  recalls  the  work  and  teach- 
ing of  such  great  names  in  Hebrew  history  as  Elijah, 
Amos,  and  Isaiah.  Indeed,  he  seems  definitely  to  have 
modelled  himself  upon  the  first-named  of  these.  The 
fierce,  shaggy  aspect  of  the  man,  his  clothing  of  skins, 
and  his  ascetic  fare  of  locusts  and  wild  honey,  all  go  to 

suggest  the  prophet  of  Horeb.     But  the  Baptist  was  no 

34 


BEGINNING    OF    THE    MINISTRY    35 

mere  imitator.  He  had  his  own  work  to  do,  and  it  was 
a  work  strictly  conditioned  by  the  circumstances  of  his 
time.  Recent  investigation  has  shown  that  the  time  was 
ripe  for  something  like  a  religious  revival  in  Israel. 
The  Roman  yoke  pressed  heavily  upon  the  nation,  and 
the  hope  of  the  kingdom  of  God  was  in  every  heart. 
That  this  hope  was  often  cast  in  the  form  of  a  narrow 
nationalism  cannot  be  denied,  and  both  John  the  Baptist 
and  Jesus  after  him  used  it  only  that  it  might  be 
corrected  and  purified  in  their  hands.  John  was  strictly 
the  forerunner  of  Jesus  in  that  he  gave  to  this  spirit  of 
expectation  an  ethical  turn.  He  preached  "  a  baptism  of 
repentance  for  remission  of  sins  "  (Mark  i.  4).  To  him 
the  vision  of  the  kingdom  meant  that  a  great  religious 
crisis  was  at  hand,  and  in  preparation  for  it  he  required 
humiliation  and  repentance  from  the  nation  and  from 
individuals  alike.  He  recalled  the  half-forgotten  spirit 
of  the  ancient  prophets,  and  in  stinging  words  lashed  the 
vices  of  his  time  and  called  men  to  a  new  and  better  life. 
The  scene  of  his  ministry  was  the  wilderness  of  Judsea, 
near  where  the  Jordan  falls  into  the  Dead  Sea.  Great 
crowds  of  people,  among  whom  all  classes  were  repre- 
sented, gathered  to  hear  him.  They  were  stirred  by  his 
words  as  are  the  leaves  of  the  forest  by  the  wind,  and 
when  he  proposed  to  follow  up  his  preaching  by  the 
symbolic  rite  of  baptism  they  came  ready  to  his  hand. 


36  LIFEOFCHRIST 

The  act  of  baptism  was  analogous  to  the  ceremonial 
washings  so  familiar  among  the  Jews,  though  it  differed 
from  these  in  being  supposed  to  be  final  in  its  effect. 
As  men  and  women  plunged  into  the  waters  of  Jordan 
and  were  raised  out  again,  they  were  held  to  have  been 
cleansed  from  their  evil  past  and  pledged  to  a  better 
life.  But  both  the  baptism  and  teaching  of  John  were 
regarded  as  only  preparatory  to  something  greater, 
according  to  the  Gospel  writers.  The  Baptist  conceived 
himself  to  be  a  forerunner,  and  pointed  men  to  another 
teacher  and  another  mission  that  should  supersede  his 
own.  As  time  went  on  this  presentiment  seems  to  have 
become  stronger,  and  when  one  day  Jesus  presented 
Himself  among  the  crowd  of  those  waiting  to  be  baptized, 
John  recognised  in  Him  the  one  who  was  to  come. 

That  Jesus  should  have  submitted  Himself  to  the 
baptism  of  John  is  a  fact  that  seems  to  require  explana- 
tion. It  would  appear  that  John  himself  showed  some 
hesitation  in  the  matter  (Matt.  iii.  14).  Probably  he 
had  some  prior  knowledge  of  Jesus,  and  it  may  be  that 
he  felt,  as  many  have  felt  since,  that  He  was  not  a  fit 
subject  for  a  baptism  of  repentance.  But  it  may  be 
urged,  on  the  other  hand,  that  in  thus  identifying  Himself 
with  the  common  crowd  Jesus  was  really  and  effectu- 
ally inaugurating  His  ministry.  Nowhere  do  His  full 
humanity,  and  His  deep  sympathy  with  human  needs. 


BEGINNING   OF    THE    MINISTRY    37 

appear  more  strikingly  than  when  He  went  down  into 
the  waters  of  Jordan  with  the  Baptist's  penitents.  This 
act  of  voluntary  humiliation  became  the  sign  of  His 
ministry,  and  is  the  beginning  of  that  sharing  of  our  human 
experiences  which  gives  to  Jesus  His  right  to  lead  men 
and  to  speak  in  their  name.  It  was  confirmed  by  what 
is  called  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  upon  Jesus,  and  by  the 
voice  which  said,  "This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I 
am  well  pleased."  From  this  time  forward  Jesus  spoke 
and  acted  as  one  who  had  a  mission  to  accomplish. 

Immediately  after  His  baptism  Jesus  was  "led  up  by 
the  Spirit  into  the  wilderness  to  be  tempted  of  the  devil." 
Under  some  Divine  inner  compulsion  (Mark  i.  12)  He 
retired  from  the  face  of  man,  and  held  communion  with 
Himself  as  to  His  life's  work.  Something  of  what  hap- 
pened in  those  days  of  prayer  and  striving,  we  know  from 
the  stories  of  the  Temptation  in  the  Gospels.  These 
stories  must  have  come  from  Jesus  Himself,  and  they 
throw  a  clearer  light  on  the  mystery  of  His  inner  con- 
sciousness than  perhaps  any  other  incident  in  His  career. 
The  form  in  which  the  narratives  are  cast  is  frankly 
parabolical.  It  was  only  through  symbols  and  in 
pictures  that  the  struggle  of  those  days  could  be  made 
real  to  other  men.  The  struggle  itself,  we  may  be  sure, 
was  fought  out  on  the  battle-ground  of  the  soul.  And 
it  was  a  real  struggle,  no  dream  or  phantom  of  the  night. 


38  LIFEOFCHRIST 

The  Temptation  of  Jesus  can  never  be  explained  by  being 
explained  away.  "  He  was  tempted  like  as  we  are," 
and  in  that  fact  is  to  be  found  His  power  to  help  us 
when  we  too  are  tempted.  He  was  without  sin,  but 
His  sinlessness  was  not  that  of  the  child  whose  inno- 
cence hardly  knows  what  it  is  to  be  tempted,  but  that  of 
the  grown  man,  the  strong  warrior,  who  has  fought  and 
conquered  in  many  a  pitched  battle.  The  non  posse 
peccare  of  the  ancients  is  a  poor  thing  beside  the  posse 
non  peccare.  And  it  is  this  latter  that  describes  the 
position  of  Jesus.  It  is  not  that  He  was  unable  to  sin 
but  that  He  was  able  not  to  sin.  The  conflict  we  call 
the  Temptation  showed  how  great  His  power  was,  and 
sealed  His  victory. 

The  story  of  the  Temptation  is  too  familiar  to  need 
a  detailed  exposition.  If  it  may  be  taken  to  represent 
Christ's  own  view  as  to  the  methods  of  His  future  work 
and  of  the  ideals  which  should  dominate  Him,  then  we 
to-day  are  much  more  concerned  with  the  spiritual 
interpretation  of  the  story  than  with  its  details  or  its 
dramatic  form.  It  has  often  been  pointed  out  that  the 
conflict  was  really  a  conflict  of  ideals.  There  is  no 
question  here  of  sin  in  its  grosser  forms.  The  battle 
was  fought  out  on  the  plane,  not  of  the  physical,  but 
of  the  spiritual  world.  Thus,  in  the  first  temptation, 
to    turn    stones    into    bread,    Jesus    is    met    with    the 


BEGINNING    OF    THE    MINISTRY   39 

suggestion  that  He  should  use  His  powers  to  satisfy 
purely  personal  needs.  The  same  temptation  presented 
itself  to  Him  once  and  again  during  His  ministry,  as 
when  He  was  urged  to  call  down  fire  from  heaven,  to 
save  Himself  from  the  Cross,  or  to  perform  miracles 
for  personal  and  inadequate  ends.  The  answer  of 
Jesus,  that  man  "  does  not  live  by  bread  alone,  but  by 
every  word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God," 
lays  down  a  principle  of  self-denial  and  of  subservience 
to  the  Divine  ends  which  became  the  guiding  principle 
of  His  career.  He  realised  that  the  path  marked  out 
for  Him  was  one  which  led  not  to  self-gratification 
but  to  self-sacrifice,  and  it  would  thus  have  been  con- 
trary to  the  whole  spirit  of  His  life  to  employ  His 
power  in  order  to  help  Himself.  The  way  in  which 
Jesus  used  His  mysterious  gifts  is  quite  as  remarkable 
as  the  gifts  themselves.  There  was  a  restraint  about 
it  which  argues  a  singular  force  of  character,  and  a 
clear  understanding  of  the  situation  involved. 

The  method  of  the  second  temptation  is  closely 
allied  to  that  of  the  first.  Our  Lord  is  bidden  to 
cast  Himself  down  from  the  pinnacle  of  the  Temple, 
that  the  angels  may  bear  Him  up  in  their  hands,  and 
all  the  world  see  how  He  enjoys  the  favour  and  pro- 
tection of  God.  In  answering,  "  Thou  shalt  not  tempt 
the  Lord  thy   God,"   Jesus  showed  that   He  was  not 


40  LIFEOFCHRIST 

to  be  regarded  as  a  favourite  of  heaven,  who  was 
exempted  from  the  ordinary  rules  of  every-day  human 
life.  His  trust  in  God  was  to  be  equal  to  every 
emergency  of  life,  and  was  to  be  justified,  not  in 
being  allowed  to  escape  from  perils,  but  in  suffering. 
Here,  again,  the  conflict  is  between  the  two  wills,  the 
human  and  the  Divine.  The  aim  of  Jesus  was  to  do 
the  will  of  Him  that  sent  Him,  therefore  He  was  not 
anxious  about  His  own  safety,  and  still  less  anxious  to 
demonstrate  to  all  and  sundry  that  underneath  Him 
were  the  everlasting  arms.  His  dependence  on  God 
did  not  bring  Him  any  protection  that  was  not  granted 
to  other  men.  As  Dr.  Fairbairn  says,  "There  was 
to  be  for  Him  no  special  intervention,  no  exclusive 
providence,  nothing  that  marked  Him  as  the  solitary 
care  and  single  love  of  Heaven.  He  was  to  take 
His  place  in  the  ranks  of  men,  live  as  they  lived, 
under  the  same  conditions,  sons  of  one  Father,  brothers 
in  dependence  on  God  as  on  Nature,  and  if  He  did 
a  greater  work  than  any  other.  He  was  still  to  do  it, 
not  as  made  of  God  independent  of  law,  but  as,  like 
man,  bound  to  all  obedience."  ^ 

The  third  temptation  offers  to  Jesus  the  kingdoms 
of  this  world  if  He  will  promise  allegiance  to  the 
prince  of  this  world.     It  springs  out  of  the  previous 

^  "Christ  in  Modern  Theology,"  p.  351. 


BEGINNING    OF   THE    MINISTRY   41 

trials,  and  makes  a  more  subtle  and  more  terrible 
appeal  than  they.  It  is  not  now  His  personal  position 
that  is  in  question,  but  the  success  of  His  life's  work. 
Will  He  make  a  compromise  with  evil  for  the  sake  of 
securing  the  triumph  of  His  aims?  Resistance  to 
this  temptation  meant  a  fixed  determination  to  do 
God's  work  in  God's  own  way,  and  to  pay  the  cost. 
The  keen  moral  sense  of  Jesus  rejected  the  possibility 
of  any  lowering  of  His  ideal  or  of  any  compromise 
with  evil.  The  way  of  the  world  was  not  to  be  His 
way.  "The  prince  of  this  world  cometh,  and  hath 
nothing  in  me." 

The  temptations,  taken  as  a  whole,  give  us  the  clue 
both  to  the  character  of  Christ's  personality  and  to  the 
nature  of  His  mission  on  the  earth.  The  life  He  lives 
among  men  is  to  be  a  really  human  life,  subject  to  the 
ordinary  limitations  of  our  lot.  That  He  has  a  power 
greater  than  that  of  other  men  goes  without  saying, 
but  He  will  not  use  this  power  for  any  purposes  of 
show,  or  to  protect  or  aggrandise  Himself.  He  holds 
it  simply  at  the  service  of  those  who  need,  and  in 
order  the  better  to  fulfil  His  mission  of  beneficence 
and  redemption.  So  far  as  He  Himself  is  concerned, 
He  lives  in  unquestioning  submission  to  the  will  of 
His  Father.  The  principle  here  laid  down  will  be  found 
to  be  of  the  greatest   importance  when   we   come   to 


42  LIFEOFCHRIST 

discuss  the  miracles  of  Jesus,  and  His  death  upon  the 
Cross.  The  Temptation  shows  Him  laying  down,  as 
it  were,  the  programme  for  His  future  work,  and  He 
"  set  His  face  steadfastly  "  to  follow  it  throughout. 

For  the  events  immediately  succeeding  the  Baptism 
and  Temptation,  the  narrative  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
needs  to  be  supplemented  by  that  of  St.  John.  Accord- 
ing to  the  now  generally  accepted  chronology,^  these 
events  took  place  in  the  winter  of  a.d.  26.  The  home 
of  Jesus  was  still  at  Nazareth,  and  after  the  solemn 
inauguration  of  His  work  He  set  out  from  Judaea  to 
return  thither.  He  was  accompanied  by  His  family, 
and  possibly  by  some  of  John's  disciples,  who  had 
been  attracted  to  Him  through  the  incidents  at  the 
Baptism,  and  who  began  to  share  the  expectations  of 
the  Baptist  in  regard  to  Him.  At  any  rate,  it  was  on 
the  return  journey  through  Galilee,  and  afterwards  at 
the  first  Passover  in  Jerusalem,  that  Jesus  began  to 
gather  round  Him  the  band  of  men  who  formed  His 
disciples.  On  the  way  to  Nazareth  Jesus  and  His 
friends  stayed  at  a  little  town  called  Cana,  and  it  was 
there  that  the  first  of  His  "signs"  was  accomplished 
(John  ii.  i-ii).  The  attendance  of  Jesus  at  the 
marriage  feast,  and  His  turning  of  the  water  into  wine, 

^  See  ihe  article  on  '*  Chronology  of  the  New  Testament ''  in 
Hastings'  "  Dictionary  of  the  Bible." 


BEGINNING    OF    THE    MINISTRY  43 

are  not  without  significance  for  the  interpretation  of  His 
ministry.  It  is  no  doubt  because  of  this  meaning  to 
be  attached  to  it  that  the  event  is  recorded  by  the 
writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  The  scene  is  in  almost 
violent  contrast  to  that  of  the  preaching  of  the  Baptist. 
John  was  an  ascetic,  and  amid  the  joy  and  plenty  of 
the  feast  Jesus  first  showed  that  spirit  which  afterwards 
was  to  condemn  Him  in  the  eyes  of  some  as  "a 
gluttonous  man  and  a  wine-bibber."  The  real  moral 
of  the  incident,  however,  is  to  emphasise  His  full  and 
beautiful  humanity,  and  His  identification  of  Himself 
with  our  common  life  and  its  needs.  From  Nain  Jesus 
went  on  to  Capernaum  (John  ii.  12),  and  after  a  brief 
stay  there  returned  with  some  of  His  disciples  to 
Jerusalem  for  the  Passover.  It  was  during  this 
Passover,  according  to  the  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
that  Jesus  expelled  the  buyers  and  sellers  from  the 
outer  court  of  the  Temple.  The  Synoptic  w^riters 
describe  a  similar  act  as  having  taken  place  early  in 
the  last  week  of  the  ministry.  It  is  just  possible  that 
Jesus  repeated  it,  though  the  act  is  certainly  more  ap- 
propriate at  the  beginning  of  His  public  work,  as  an 
expression  of  His  claims,  and  as  a  commencement  of 
that  cleansing  process  foreshadowed  in  the  baptism  of 
John.  Some  overt  act  of  the  kind  seems  to  be  needed 
in  order  to  account  for  the  public  notice  which  now 


44  LIFEOFCHRIST 

began  to  be  taken  of  His  work.  In  this  and  in  other 
respects  the  Johannine  narrative  well  fills  the  gaps  left 
in  the  other  Gospels,  and  taken  along  with  them  gives 
a  coherent  picture  of  events  in  this  early  period. 

It  was  about  this  time  also  that  the  fortunes  of  Jesus 
and  the  whole  outlook  of  His  mission  were  profoundly 
affected  by  the  arrest  of  John  the  Baptist  at  the  hands 
of  Herod  Antipas.  The  son  of  Herod  the  Great,  Anti- 
pas  had  inherited  from  his  father  the  tetrarchy  of  Galilee 
and  Perea.  He  was  a  fairly  successful  administrator, 
and  skilled  in  diplomacy  of  the  more  cunning  type. 
His  arrest  of  the  Baptist  was  a  purely  political  measure 
of  precaution  against  a  seditious  person  and  a  possible 
menace  to  the  Roman  power.  John  was  throv/n  into 
the  fortress  Machserus,  and  there  remained  a  prisoner 
for  many  months.  This  action  on  the  part  of  the 
authorities  was  a  warning  to  Jesus  of  the  trouble  that 
might  be  expected,  and  He  at  once  retired  into  Galilee. 
On  His  way  "  He  must  needs  pass  through  Samaria," 
and  St.  John's  moving  and  beautiful  story  of  the  inter- 
view with  the  Samaritan  woman  at  Jacob's  well,  and  of 
the  events  which  followed  from  it,  serves  to  show  the 
way  in  which  His  mission  shaped  itself  before  the  mind 
of  Jesus,  and  the  difficulty  He  experienced  in  making 
it  known  both  to  His  disciples  and  to  the  populace 
(John  iv.).     On  the  return  to  Galilee  Jesus  remained  in 


BEGINNING    OF    THE    MINISTRY   45 

comparative  privacy,  and  the  disciples  seem  to  have 
returned  to  their  ordinary  occupations.  But  their 
Master  could  not  altogether  be  hidden.  The  news  of 
events  in  Jerusalem  had  preceded  Him,  and  as  He  was 
stirred  by  compassion  to  perform  certain  works  of 
healing,  men's  minds  began  to  be  occupied  with 
Him  and  His  doings,  and  the  time  became  ripe  for 
greater  things. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  execution  of  the  Baptist 
proved  a  turning-point  in  the  career  of  Jesus.  Some 
modern  writers  contend  that  Jesus  really  became  John's 
successor,  and  did  not  begin  His  mission  until  this 
moment.  Without  going  so  far  as  this,  we  may  well 
believe  that  the  death  of  the  forerunner  served  to  put  an 
end  to  the  probationary  period  of  the  ministry,  and 
acted  as  a  call  to  new  and  wider  activities.  From  this 
time  forth  it  became  more  and  more  evident  that  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  was  at  hand. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  CALL  AND  COMMISSION  OF  THE 
TWELVE 

In  gathering  round  Him  twelve  men  that  they  might 
receive  His  teaching  and  carry  on  His  work,  Jesus  was 
acting  in  accordance  with  the  custom  of  His  time. 
The  Rabbi  and  his  school  of  followers  was  a  familiar 
figure  throughout  Palestine.  But  it  was  only  in  externals 
that  Jesus  resembled  him.  The  relationship  between 
Him  and  His  followers,  and  the  effect  that  He  produced 
both  upon  them  and  by  their  means,  were  quite  unlike 
anything  that  had  been  known  in  the  Rabbinical 
schools.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  method  of  Jesus 
was  deliberate.  It  was  not  His  purpose  to  found  a 
Church,  or  establish  an  organisation,  but  rather  to  call 
men  to  Himself  and  mould  them  after  His  own  pattern. 
They  were  to  become  the  living  vehicles  of  His  truth 
and  the  witnesses  to  His  power.  In  stamping  them 
with  His  own  image  Jesus  left  behind  Him  a  cere- 
monial more  lasting  than  any  institution.     The  relation 

46 


CALL    OF    THE    TWELVE  47 

between  Jesus  and  His  disciples  is  most  interesting 
and  instructive.  They  were  His  intimates  during  the 
time  of  His  ministry,  and  much  of  His  teaching  was 
meant  solely  for  their  ears.  But  it  was  only  by  slow 
degrees  that  they  were  brought  to  an  understanding  of 
their  Master's  message,  and  the  Gospels  are  singularly 
candid  in  recording  their  misapprehension  of  the  real 
situation,  and  even  their  unbelief  This  is  not  sur- 
prising when  it  is  remembered  that  the  men  themselves 
were  men  of  the  people,  and  had  had  no  special  lite- 
rary or  spiritual  training.  Some  of  them  at  least  had 
been  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  wxre  "  looking 
for  the  consolation  of  Israel "  ;  and  it  is  safe  to  con- 
jecture that  there  must  have  been  about  all  of  them 
some  signs  of  fitness  for  the  work  in  hand  before  they 
received  their  call.  The  common  element  about  them 
seems  to  have  been  a  readiness  to  receive  new  im- 
pressions and  an  absence  of  that  formalism  which 
was  so  marked  a  characteristic  of  the  religious 
life  of  their  age.  In  other  respects  their  culture  and 
mental  attitude  were  those  of  their  contemporaries. 
The  connection  of  these  men  with  Jesus  was  established 
only  by  degrees.  As  has  already  been  indicated,  some 
of  them  attached  themselves  to  Him  as  the  result  of 
John  the  Baptist's  teaching,  and  remained  in  a  more  or 
less   loose    adherence    during   the    early   days   of    the 


48  LIFEOFCHRIST 

ministry.  But  there  came  a  time  when  it  was  necessary 
to  make  this  connection  a  more  formal  and  definite 
thing.  A  special  arrangement  was  entered  into  with 
the  Twelve.  They  were  to  be  with  Jesus ;  they  were  to 
be  sent  out  to  preach  in  His  name ;  and  they  were 
to  receive  power  to  heal  sicknesses  and  to  cast  out 
devils  (Mark  iii.  14). 

It  was  thus  by  a  gradual  process  of  selection  that 
the  little  company  was  formed.  First  of  them  came 
the  two  brothers — Simon,  surnamed  Peter,  and  Andrew 
— and  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  James  and  John.  These 
four  seem  to  have  enjoyed  a  peculiar  degree  of  intimacy 
with  Jesus.  Peter  was  the  frequent  spokesman  of  the 
band.  A  strong,  passionate,  impulsive  soul,  he  had 
the  defects  of  his  qualities.  Though  he  sinned  greatly 
he  loved  much,  and  the  power  of  our  Lord's  personality 
is  seen  in  the  way  in  which  He  bound  this  child  of 
nature  to  Himself,  and  caused  him  to  grow  in  grace 
until  he  became  the  life  and  soul  of  the  early  Church. 
Of  the  first  four,  and  indeed  of  the  whole  twelve,  John 
was  the  intellectual  leader.  He  first  began  to  under- 
stand the  work  and  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  between 
him  and  the  Master,  who  was  also  his  cousin  according 
to  the  flesh,  there  sprang  up  a  very  close  and  beautiful 
intimacy.  Of  Andrew  and  James  very  little  is  known. 
Both,  it  appears,  suffered  a  martyr's  death — Andrew  at 


CALL    OF    THE    TWELVE  49 

Patrse  in  Achaia,  and  James  at  the  hands  of  Herod 
Agrippa  (Acts  xii.  2).  Next  in  order  among  the 
Twelve  come  Philip  and  Bartholomew,  The  latter 
is  usually  identified  with  Nathaniel  of  Cana,  "  an 
Israelite  without  guile,"  Bar  Talmai  being  his  patro- 
nymic. Philip  was  of  Bethsaida — a  slow,  dull  man, 
who,  according  to  the  tradition,  was  charged  wath  the 
work  of  catering  for  the  temporal  needs  of  the  band. 
Thomas  and  Matthew  come  next,  both  remarkable 
men.  Thomas  was  a  doubting  soul,  but  for  that  very 
reason  all  the  more  conspicuous  in  his  absolute  devo- 
tion to  the  Master.  Matthew,  or  Levi,  belonged  to  the 
despised  class  of  publicans,  and  his  call  to  disciple- 
ship  was  a  practical  manifesto  on  the  part  of  Jesus. 
His  book,  the  Logia  or  Sayings  of  Jesus,  became  the 
basis  of  our  First  Gospel.  James  the  son  of  Alphaeus, 
also  called  James  the  Little,  is  the  next  in  the  band, 
and  tradition  says  that  he  also  had  been  a  tax-gatherer, 
the  friend  and  companion  of  Levi.  Then  comes  one 
who  is  variously  called  Lebbseus,  Thaddseus,  or  Judas 
the  son  of  James.  Last  on  the  list  are  Simon  the 
Canansean,  a  Zealot,  a  member  of  a  party  that  was 
pledged  to  undying  enmity  against  the  Roman  Govern- 
ment, and  Judas  of  Kerioth  in  Judaea,  who  became 
treasurer  of  the  band,  and  ultimately  sold  his  Master 
to  the  priests  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver. 


50  LIFEOFCHRIST 

It  was  with  these  men  that  Jesus  began  the  work  of 
His  ministry  and  laid  the  foundations  of  the  kingdom. 
To  them  He  first  opened  "  the  mystery  of  the  kingdom," 
and  then  sent  them  forth  to  preach  and  act  in  His  name. 
Much  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  was  intended  for  the  ears 
of  the  disciples  in  the  first  instance,  though  afterwards 
they  were  to  become  witnesses  of  it  to  the  world.  Thus, 
while  He  spake  to  the  crowd  in  parables,  the  explanation 
of  the  parables  was  given  only  to  this  inner  circle.  But 
even  the  disciples  were  slow  of  heart  to  believe,  and  the 
soil  of  their  minds  needed  much  preparation  before  it 
was  ready  to  receive  the  seed  of  the  kingdom.  They 
all  had  their  traditional  preconceptions  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  were  by  no  means  ready 
for  the  purely  spiritual  tone  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  on 
the  subject.  It  was  for  this  reason,  probably,  that  so 
many  of  the  more  private  discourses  of  their  Master 
dwelt  on  the  prospects  of  the  persecution  that  awaited 
them,  and  on  the  blessings  that  belonged  to  the  poor 
and  the  meek.  They  were  not  to  be  led  astray  by  the 
first  enthusiasms  of  the  crowd,  but  were  to  keep  in 
mind  that  their  destiny  was  to  be  hated  of  all  men  for 
the  Son  of  man's  sake.  Parable  after  parable  bids 
them  recognise  the  slow,  secret,  and  silent  way  in  which 
alone  God's  kingdom  can  come,  and  helps  to  disabuse 
their  minds    of  those   facile  notions  as   to  place   and 


CALL    OF    THE    TWELVE  51 

power  by  which  they  were  too  easily  occupied.  They 
are  constantly  warned  against  judging  of  their  work  and 
of  the  life  of  the  kingdom  by  external  signs.  It  is  the 
inner  motive  and  conscience  that  determine  everything, 
and  by  the  word  of  God  only  that  men  live.  So  the 
disciples  are  sent  forth  as  Apostles  into  the  world,  re- 
lying only  on  the  help  which  comes  from  the  Spirit  of 
God.  They  have  to  work  the  works  of  their  Master  and 
testify  for  Him  to  a  crooked  and  perverse  generation, 
and  they  have  to  do  it  all  dependent  only  on  the  unseen. 
Without  money  or  changes  of  raiment  they  are  to  go 
forth,  bearing  the  Lord's  burden,  turning  their  cheeks 
to  the  smiter  and  facing  the  harshness  of  the  world, 
with  no  other  assurance  than  that  of  the  presence  of 
spiritual  help  with  those  that  need  and  seek  it.  They 
are  to  seek,  in  utter  self-forgetfulness,  the  glory  of  God 
and  His  kingdom  and  the  salvation  of  men.  The 
programme  of  their  mission  as  Jesus  sketches  it  is  truly 
amazing,  and  it  may  be  questioned  whether  any  of  the 
disciples  realised  it  in  its  entirety  until  after  the  Resur- 
rection. It  is  always  useful  to  remember  that  in  the 
Gospels  we  have  unconsciously  the  reflections  of  these 
men  themselves  in  the  light  of  experience.  It  is  well, 
too,  that  in  studying  the  commission  of  Jesus  we  should 
bear  in  mind  the  manner  in  which  afterwards  it  was 
carried  out.     Some  of  the  narratives  in  the  Acts  of  the 


52  LIFEOFCHRIST 

Apostles  form  the  best  possible  commentary  on  the 
words  of  Jesus  in  the  Gospels  as  to  the  work  which  His 
Apostles  were  called  upon  to  do,  and  reveal  in  quite  an 
unmistakable  fashion  the  impression  which  Jesus  had 
made  upon  them. 

Any  account  of  the  instruction  which  Jesus  gave  to 
the  disciples  would  require  a  recapitulation  of  the 
whole  of  His  public  teaching.  They  were  present 
when  "  He  taught  the  multitudes,"  but  they  had  also 
the  advantage  of  hearing  certain  private  explanations 
of  the  more  public  teaching.  Among  the  discourses 
intended  primarily  for  their  ears,  are  generally  reckoned 
parts  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  of  the  address 
on  the  great  mission  (Matt.  x.  5-14),  the  apocalyptic 
address  in  Matt.  xxiv.  and  xxv.,  and  the  discourse  in  the 
upper  room  at  the  time  of  the  betrayal  (John  xiv.-xvi.). 
Of  certain  special  incidents  in  the  life  of  their  Master 
the  Twelve  or  certain  individuals  among  them  were 
the  only  witnesses,  and  these,  too,  must  be  reckoned 
among  the  lessons  which  they  were  intended  to  learn. 
Such  were  the  raising  of  Jairus'  daughter,  the  walking  on 
the  sea,  the  transfiguration,  the  cursing  of  the  barren 
fig-tree,  the  foot-washing  in  the  upper  room,  and  the 
miraculous  draught  of  fishes.  In  addition  to  all  this, 
however,  very  much  of  the  general  teaching  of  Jesus 
bears  on  the  nature  of  the   discipleship  of  which   the 


CALL    OFTHE    TWELVE  53 

members  of  this  little  band  were  to  be  the  first 
examples  and  exponents.  Their  relations  with  Jesus 
Christ  and  His  mission  were  to  be  reproduced  in 
countless  others  who  had  not  known  Him  "after  the 
flesh."  To  these  He  is  leader  and  guide,  the  way 
to  the  Father,  the  example  and  inspiration  of  life. 
They  become,  through  their  relation  of  obedience  and 
likeness  to  Him,  a  community  fenced  off  from  the 
world,  bearing  its  burdens  but  not  sharing  its  spirit. 
The  object  of  their  discipline  is  that  they,  too,  may 
take  up  the  cross  and  deny  themselves  for  the  sake  of 
others.  Thus  they  become  the  "  salt  of  the  earth,"  "  the 
light  of  the  world,"  the  leaven  which  "leaveneth  the 
whole  lump."  The  charge  laid  upon  them,  when  their 
training  is  complete,  is  that  they  shall  go  forth  in  the 
name  of  their  Master  and  in  His  strength,  making 
disciples  of  all  nations  and  baptizing  them  into  the 
Name.  In  this  vast  undertaking  His  Presence  is  to  go 
with  them  unto  the  end,  and  from  Him  they  will  derive 
the  power  and  inspiration  needed  for  their  great  task. 

Thus  for  the  student  of  the  life  of  Jesus  His  call 
and  training  of  the  Twelve  are  all  important.  We  have 
here,  in  epitome.  His  whole  programme,  and  it  enables 
us  to  realise,  as  perhaps  nothing  else  does,  the  breadth 
of  His  outlook  and  the  world-wide  scope  of  His  vision. 
This  thing  was    not   done    in   a  corner.      Behind  and 


54  LIFEOFCHRIST 

throughout  it  all  is  manifest  a  purpose  which  is  nothing 
less  than  the  world-wide  mission  for  the  uplifting  of 
men.  Even  the  terms  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  are  too 
narrow  to  include  it  all.  Jesus  reads  His  own  inter- 
pretation into  the  familiar  Jewish  forms,  and  works 
on  principles  which  are  moral  and  spiritual  rather  than 
ecclesiastical.  The  effect  which  He  produced  upon 
the  men  who  were  His  intimates  was  profound  and 
lasting.  By  the  quiet  influence  of  His  Personality 
He  won  their  free  assent  to  His  claims  and  sent 
them  out  to  bear  witness  to  the  world.  He  changed 
their  character  and  moral  conceptions  first,  that  through 
them  He  might  appeal  to  the  wider  circle.  This  is 
the  chosen  method  of  Jesus.  Not  by  the  exertion 
of  any  authority  or  by  the  open  manifestation  of  power, 
but  through  the  leavening  influence  of  character  and 
personality  does  He  make  His  truth  known.  It  is 
this  which  constitutes  the  universality  of  His  message 
and  gives  the  most  permanent  guarantee  to  His  word. 

Amongst  the  first  disciples  of  Jesus  was  a  little  band 
of  women  who  must  not  pass  without  mention.  That 
they  should  have  found  so  large  a  place  in  the  records  of 
the  ministry  is  very  significant.  Their  presence  throws 
not  a  little  light  on  the  tone  and  scope  of  the  ministry 
of  Jesus.  Some  of  these  women  were  relatives  of  the 
men  disciples,  and  they  cared  for  the  simple  domestic 


CALL    OF    THE    TWELVE  55 

needs  of  the  band.  Among  them  were  Mary  of  Magdala, 
who  had  been  cured  by  Jesus  of  some  mental  or  nervous 
complaint  ("  out  of  whom  He  cast  seven  devils  "),  and 
Joanna  the  wife  of  Chusa  the  steward  of  Herod  Antipas, 
one  Susanna,  and  the  household  at  Bethany.  After  the 
death  of  Jesus  His  own  mother  seems  to  have  joined 
these  women  disciples.  She,  with  others  of  them,  was 
present  at  the  Crucifixion,  and  these  remained  faithful 
when  the  other  disciples  had  fled.  Their  devotion  to 
the  Master  was  very  real,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that 
they  played  a  large  part  in  the  ministrations  of  the  early 
Church.  It  was  from  the  ranks  of  such  women  as  these 
that  the  first  deaconesses  were  chosen  and  ministered  to 
the  poor,  the  sick,  and  the  imprisoned.  In  the  spread 
of  early  Christianity  their  influence  was  very  considerable, 
and  they  were  instrumental  in  finding  an  entrance  for 
the  new  religion  into  the  homes  of  both  Jews  and 
Romans  of  the  better  class.  Considering  the  very  great 
share  which  women  have  had  in  the  work  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  from  the  beginning,  and  the  influence  of 
Christianity  on  the  status  and  estimate  of  their  sex,  it  is 
interesting  to  be  able  to  trace  the  beginnings  of  it  all  to 
the  example  and  teaching  of  Jesus  Himself. 

The  question  has  been  raised  in  modern  times  as  to 
whether  Jesus  and  His  disciples  can  be  said  to  have 
belonged  to  any  of  the  religious  sects  which  were  common 


56  LIFEOFCHRIST 

in  Palestine  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era.  In 
particular  it  has  been  urged  that  His  teaching  and  that 
of  John  the  Baptist  have  special  affinities  with  that  of 
the  Essenes.^  These  were  a  Jewish  sect  closely  related 
to  the  Pharisees,  of  whom  Josephus  says  that  there  were 
at  least  4000  in  and  around  Jerusalem.  They  were  a 
simple  agricultural  people,  who  lived  as  celibates  and 
had  all  things  in  common.  They  were  characterised  by 
a  scrupulous  cleanliness,  had  no  slaves,  dressed  in  white, 
and  prohibited  the  use  of  oaths.  They  were  rigid  in 
their  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  but  were  excluded  from 
the  Temple  worship  because  of  their  abhorrence  of 
animal  sacrifice,  and  their  habit  of  making  a  daily  prayer 
to  the  sun.  There  is  no  evidence  whatever  that  Jesus  or 
His  disciples  had  any  connection  with  them,  nor  is  there 
to  be  found  any  real  trace  of  their  influence  in  early 
Christian  teaching  or  practice. 

^  For  further  information  about  this  curious  order  cf.  Schiirer'i 
"  History  of  the  Jewish  People,"  and  Bousset,  Die  Religion  des 
Jndentu7HS. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE    MIRACLES 

We  have  now  reached  a  point  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus 
when  it  becomes  necessary  to  treat  certain  outstanding 
features  of  it  by  themselves  and  apart  from  any  chrono- 
logical sequence.  For  the  contemporaries  of  Jesus  His 
teaching  and  His  miracles  provided  at  once  the  great 
attraction  and  the  great  stumbling-block.  "Whence 
hath  this  man  this  wisdom  and  these  mighty  works  ?  " 
By  the  modern  world  His  teaching  is  accepted  with 
increasing  reverence  and  assent,  while  His  miracles  are 
viewed  with  suspicion  as  a  hindrance  rather  than  a  help 
to  the  faith.  They  present  a  problem  which  deserves  to 
be  discussed  with  the  utmost  candour  and  with  entire 
freedom  from  prejudice. 

Great  changes  have  taken  place  since  Mr.  Matthew 
Arnold  dismissed  the  whole  subject  with  the  airy 
dictum,  "  Miracles  do  not  happen."  Such  a  confident 
and  question-begging  denial  is  not  now  possible  to  any 


58  LIFEOFCHRIST 

careful  student  of  the  subject,  and  argues  a  prejudice  of 
which  it  must  be  our  first  business  to  rid  ourselves  if  we 
are  to  take  a  scientific  view  of  the  situation.  We  must 
accept  Huxley's  dictum,  that  "  no  conceivable  event, 
however  extraordinary,  is  impossible."  Even  among 
scholars  who  are  by  no  means  conservative  there  is  now 
a  strong  tendency  to  recede  from  the  extreme  sceptical 
position  and  to  view  the  whole  situation  with  an  open 
mind.  The  reasons  for  this  are  partly  historical  and 
partly  psychological.  It  can  no  longer  be  assumed  that 
the  miraculous  element  is  a  late  accretion  in  the  Gospel 
narrative,  and  arises  out  of  the  myth-making  tendency  at 
work  among  the  Evangelists.  Critical  investigation  has 
shown  that  the  miracles  are  an  essential  part  of  the 
Gospels  in  their  very  earliest  form,  so  far,  at  least,  as  that 
form  is  recoverable,  and  cannot  be  separated  from  them 
without  destroying  them  altogether.  On  the  other 
hand,  modern  psychology  is  opening  up  the  whole 
subject  in  a  variety  of  ways,  and  making  it  less  and  less 
possible  to  take  the  standpoint  of  a  dogmatic  materialism. 
It  is  true  that  we  can  no  longer  regard  the  miracles  as  an 
apologetic  asset.  No  one  now  tries  to  prove  the  truth 
of  Christianity  by  means  of  them  after  the  fashion  of 
Paley.  Their  evidential  value  is  no  longer  regarded  as 
their  supreme  merit.     They  have  to  be  accounted  for 


THE    MIRACLES  59 

and  explained.  We  no  longer  see  in  them  a  glorification 
of  the  Person  of  Christ  and  evidence  for  His  divinity. 
We  begin  with  the  Person,  and  we  see  in  them  that 
feature  of  His  life  and  work  which  most  challenges 
criticism  and  makes  the  largest  demands  on  faith.  It 
is  both  true  and  pertinent  to  say  that  the  supreme 
miracle  of  the  New  Testament  is  Jesus  Christ  Himself. 
He  represents  a  moral  and  spiritual  problem  that  as 
much  requires  explanation  as  do  any  of  the  wonderful 
works  attributed  to  Him.  Granted  that  He  was  what 
He  claimed  to  be  and  some  such  works  follow  almost  as 
a  matter  of  course.  Knowing  what  we  do  of  the  power 
of  personality  in  ordinary  experience  it  is  hard  to  say 
what  limits  can  be  put  to  the  work  of  a  personality  so 
extraordinary  as  Jesus  Christ.  This  means  a  vast 
assumption,  and  involves  for  those  who  make  it  a  know- 
ledge not  only  of  the  consciousness  of  Jesus  during  His 
earthly  ministry,  but  of  the  power  of  His  personality  in 
history  and  in  the  lives  of  men.  On  the  basis  of  His 
unique  relation  to  God  on  the  one  hand  and  to  the 
world  on  the  other,  the  powers  He  possessed  and  the 
actions  He  wrought  appeal  to  us  as  natural  and  proper. 

A  very  superficial  study  of  the  self-consciousness  of 
Jesus  as  presented  to  us  in  the  Gospels  shows  that  He 
believed  Himself  to  be  possessed  of  unique  powers,  and 


6o  LIFEOFCHRIST 

that  in  using  them  He  adhered  to  a  definite  plan  or  law. 
If  the  story  of  the  Temptation  means  anything  it  means 
a  fixed  determination  on  the  part  of  Jesus  never  to  use  His 
powers  to  secure  His  own  safety  or  aggrandisement,  or 
in  order  to  beat  down  the  resistance  of  unbelief.  The 
story  of  His  ministry  shows  this  purpose  to  be  dominant 
at  every  point.  In  His  use  of  signs,  as  the  miracles  are 
called,  He  is  sparing  and  reluctant.  He  charges  secrecy 
on  many  of  those  who  benefit  by  them,  and  holds  Him- 
self, as  it  were,  at  the  mercy  of  their  attitude.  Faith 
was  the  condition  on  which  alone  He  was  able  to  help 
men,  and  of  one  place  we  read,  "He  could  not  do  many 
mighty  works  there  because  of  their  unbelief."  When 
asked  to  give  some  striking  exhibition  of  His  power  in 
order  to  convince  men  as  to  His  claims  He  utterly 
refused,  and  He  never  lifted  a  finger  in  order  to  help 
Himself.  Most  of  His  miracles  simply  arose  out  of  His 
deep  compassion  for  the  needs  and  sorrows  of  the  people 
around  Him ;  but  even  then  He  gave  His  help  with  no 
lavish  hand,  and  was  evidently  conscious  of  the  double- 
edged  character  of  the  weapons  He  wielded  and  of  the 
danger  accompanying  their  use.  All  these  are  con- 
siderations of  the  first  importance  in  estimating  the 
miracles  of  Jesus  Christ.  They  show  Him  to  stand  in 
an    altogether    different   category   from    other   miracle- 


THE    MIRACLES  6i 

workers.  They  argue  strongly  for  the  verisimiHtude 
of  the  Gospel  narratives,  for  it  is  impossible  that  the 
writers  could  have  invented  a  picture  so  consistent  and 
so  restrained.  And  they  offer  a  theory  of  His  action 
which  is  at  once  probable  and  worthy  of  the  highest 
claims  which  can  be  made  on  His  behalf. 

But  here  again  it  must  be  admitted  that  we  make 
large  assumptions.  That  the  universe  as  a  whole 
expresses  the  will  of  God  and  moves  according  to 
His  plan.  That  the  moral  order  is  supreme,  and  that 
a  Divine  purpose  runs  through  all  things.  That  Jesus 
Christ  appeared  as  part  of  this  Divine  purpose,  and 
that  the  natural  order  is  not  violated  by  His  coming 
or  by  any  actions  that  He  performed.  It  is  important 
too  to  remember,  as  Professor  Gwatkin  admirably 
points  out,  that  "The  natural  order  does  not  mean 
simply  the  physical  order  of  things,  but  that  order  as 
modified  by  the  action  of  persons :  for  even  the 
necessitarians  who  finally  resolve  such  action  into  the 
physical  order  do  not  deny  that  it  brings  out  results, 
and  that  some  results  are  not  brought  out  without  it. 
Hence  no  result  is  contrary  to  the  natural  order  unless 
it  cannot  be  reached  by  any  action  of  persons.  Now, 
the  results  which  men  obtain  from  the  natural  order 
depend  mainly  on  their  knowledge  of  science.      As  the 


62  LIFEOFCHRIST 

results  which  the  ancients  obtained  are  no  measure 
of  those  we  ourselves  obtain,  so  these,  again,  are  no 
measure  of  the  results  we  hope  our  children  will  obtain 
by  a  better  knowledge  of  science.  Yet  if  science  is 
true  sympathy  with  the  power  behind  Nature,  it  is 
but  imperfect  and  one-sided  sympathy.  It  is  imperfect 
because  it  is  an  uncompleted  evolution ;  and  it  is  one- 
sided because  it  so  poorly  represents  the  moral  side 
implied  in  the  trustworthiness  of  that  power.  Yet, 
such  as  it  is,  it  gives  us  such  power  over  Nature  as 
we  possess.  At  this  point  I  submit  that  even  the 
greatest  imaginable  victories  of  science  are  no  measure 
of  the  results  a  man  might  obtain,  if  he  were  in  perfect 
sympathy  of  feeling,  thought,  and  will  with  the  Divine 
order  of  the  entire  universe — a  character  theologically 
described  as  without  sin.  To  put  the  matter  in  a 
concrete  form,  let  us  imagine  the  story  true,  that  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  was  such  a  man.  In  that  case  He  must 
have  had  power  far  greater  than  our  own,  and  been 
able  to  do  in  a  perfectly  natural  way  many  things 
we  cannot  do,  and  some,  perhaps,  which  no  advance 
of  science  that  we  can  look  for  would  enable  us  to 
do.  If  we  think  out  what  the  supposition  means  we 
may  find  it  not  unlikely  that  most  of  the  'signs' 
ascribed   to   Him   would  be  well  within   the  power  of 


THE    MIRACLES  63 

such  a  man.  Nobody  doubts  that  His  vivid  sympathy 
might  account  for  some  obscure  healings :  but  once 
we  are  off  the  ground  of  technical  scientific  skill  we 
can  establish  no  distinction  of  kind  between  these  signs 
and  others  which  seem  to  lie  further  from  common 
experience.  Given  such  a  man,  I  see  nothing  unlikely 
in  the  story  that  he  had  power  to  raise  the  dead." 
The  whole  question  of  the  miracles,  therefore,  runs 
back  into  that  of  the  Personality  of  Jesus.  The  two 
stand  or  fall  together. 

Turning,  then,  once  more  to  the  Gospel  history,  we 
note  certain  distinctions  in  the  character  of  the  miracles 
recorded.  There  are :  (i)  The  miracles  worked  on  the 
human  subject,  such  as  the  healing  of  demoniacs 
(Matt.  viii.  28,  ix.  32,  xii.  22,  xv.  21,  xvii.  14;  Mark 
i.  23);  of  the  impotent  man  at  Bethesda  (John  v.  9); 
of  the  man  with  the  withered  hand  (Matt.  xii.  10);  of 
the  woman  with  the  spirit  of  infirmity  (Luke  xiii.  11); 
of  various  paralytics  (Matt.  viii.  5  and  ix.  2);  of  the 
blind  (Matt.  ix.  27,  xx.  30;  Mark  viii.  22  ;  John  ix.  i); 
of  lepers  (Matt.  viii.  2;  Luke  xvii.  11);  the  raising 
of  the  dead,  e.g.  the  daughter  of  Jairus  (Matt.  ix.  23); 
the  son  of  the  widow  of  Nain  (Luke  vii.  11);  and 
Lazarus  (John  xi.  43).  (2)  The  miracles  worked  upon 
Nature,   such    as    the   cursing    of    the    barren   fig-tree 


64  LIFEOFCHRIST 

(Matt.  xxi.  i8);  the  stilling  of  the  storm  (Matt.  viii.  26); 
the  walking  on  the  sea  (Matt.  xiv.  25).  Among  these, 
too,  must  be  placed  the  feeding  of  the  four  and  five 
thousand  (Matt.  xv.  32  and  xiv.  19);  as  well  as  the 
changing  of  water  into  wine  at  Cana  (John  ii.  i). 
(3)  Standing  in  a  category  by  themselves,  as  difficult 
to  estimate  as  they  are  to  classify,  are  the  following: 
the  miraculous  draughts  of  fish  (Luke  v.  i  and  John 
xxi.  6);  and  the  finding  of  the  money  in  the  fish's 
mouth  (Matt.  xvii.  24). 

Turning  now  to  the  evidence  for  the  miracles  in 
general,  it  has  to  be  noted  that  the  various  classes 
of  miracles  stand  very  much  on  the  same  level.  It 
is  not  possible  to  accept  the  miracles  of  healing,  for 
instance,  and  reject  the  Nature  miracles  as  being  less 
duly  authenticated.  No  doubt  it  may  seem  to  some 
easier  to  account  for  the  former  than  for  the  latter, 
but  so  far  as  the  history  is  concerned  instances  of 
both  kinds  occur  in  the  earliest  sources  of  the  life  of 
Jesus.  If,  as  is  now  generally  conceded,  the  tendency 
of  recent  critical  investigation  has,  on  the  whole,  been 
to  establish  rather  than  to  destroy  the  historicity  of 
the  Gospel  narratives  in  general,  then  it  must  be 
admitted  that  the  evidence  for  the  miracles  is  strong, 
and  that  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  those  who  would 


THE    MIRACLES  65 


summarily  reject  them  are  very  great.  This  does  not 
mean  that  all  the  miracles  are  to  be  placed  on  the 
same  level.  Allowance  has  to  be  made  for  the  tendency 
on  the  part  of  observers  in  those  days  to  look  for  the 
miraculous,  and  for  consequent  exaggerations,  more 
or  less  unconscious,  in  individual  cases.  It  is  of  these 
that  Dr.  Sanday's  dictum  holds  good.  "We  may  be 
sure  that  if  the  miracles  of  the  first  century  had  been 
wrought  before  trained  spectators  of  the  nineteenth, 
the  version  of  them  would  be  quite  different."  If, 
however,  God  reveals  Himself  to  each  age  in  the 
language  which  that  age  can  understand,  and  under 
the  forms  to  which  it  is  accustomed,  then  there  is 
a  certain  congruity  in  the  miraculous  element  in  the 
Gospels.  The  preconceptions  of  the  age  in  which  we 
live  must  not  be  allowed  to  destroy  our  sense  of  histori- 
cal perspective.  On  the  same  grounds,  we  have  to 
admit  the  reasonableness  and  the  historical  truth  of 
the  attitude  which  our  Lord  Himself  took  up  towards 
these  "  signs."  In  dealing  with  the  demoniacs,  for 
instance.  He  spoke  and  acted,  as  He  was  wont  to 
do,  in  accordance  with  the  current  ideas  of  the  time. 
The  assumption  was  necessary  in  order  to  enable 
Him  to  meet  men  on  their  own  ground,  and  bring 
to   them   the  help  which  He  had  it  in  His  power  to 


66  LIFEOFCHRIST 

give.  It  was  a  necessary  consequence  of  His  Incarna- 
tion that  He  should  use  His  powers  under  the  usual 
limitations  of  His  age  and  of  the  circumstances  of 
His  life.i 

For,  as  has  already  been  suggested,  the  miracles  of 
Jesus  cannot  be  considered  apart  from  the  interpretation 
of  His  personality.  He  began  His  ministry  conscious 
of  a  vocation,  and  of  powers  given  Him  in  order  to 
exercise  it.  His  use  of  these  powers  is  sparing  and 
cautious.  There  is  no  display  about  it,  and  no  attempt 
to  benefit  Himself  thereby.  His  motives  are  those  of 
His  ministry  in  general,  a  pure  pity  for  lost  and  fallen 
men,  and  a  passionate  desire  to  save.  The  miracles 
are  sometimes  objected  to  because  it  is  said  that  they 
are  unworthy  of  the  character  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  is 
surely  to  misunderstand  altogether  His  own  attitude 
towards  them.  Rightly  regarded,  they  can  only  enhance 
our  appreciation  of  His  relations  with  men,  of  the 
loftiness  of  His  motives,  and  of  the  wonderful  restraint 
He  showed  in  the  use  of  His  powers.  The  moral 
and  spiritual  miracle  involved  in  all  this  is  the  one  we 
have  first  to   face;    this   admitted,    the   rest    becomes 

1  Cf.  article  on  "  Demonology  "  in  Hastings'  "  Dictionary  "  by 
Dr.  Wliitehouse.  "  We  are  dealing  with  the  reports  of  chroniclers 
whose  minds  were  necessarily  coloured  by  the  prevailing  beliefs  of 
the  age,  psychic  and  cosmic." 


THE    MIRACLES  67 

comparatively  easy,  or  at  least  conceivable.  No  doubt 
the  view  of  the  contemporaries  of  Jesus  was  somewhat 
different.  They  saw  in  His  marvellous  works  the  signs 
of  His  power,  and  the  justification  for  His  claims, 
and  they  judged  accordingly.  They  were  perfectly  right 
in  so  doing,  and  acted  according  to  their  lights.  If 
the  miracles  are  rejected  it  becomes  quite  impossible 
to  account  for  their  appreciation  of  Jesus  and  of  His 
work.  But  we  are  equally  justified  in  looking  at  the 
matter  from  a  different  point  of  view.  To  us  the 
supreme  miracle  is  the  Person  of  Jesus  Christ,  seen 
as  we  see  it,  in  the  light  of  history  and  experience. 
In  our  eyes  He  authenticates  His  miracles.  Being 
such  an  one  as  He  was.  He  could  not  have  done  other 
than  He  did.  This  conclusion  does  not  debar  us 
from  using  all  the  knowledge  that  has  come  to  us  in 
these  latter  days  to  explain  His  methods,  and  to 
account  for  the  results  He  achieved.  As  our  knowledge 
grows  it  may  be  possible  to  do  this  more  satisfactorily. 
Meanwhile,  "  I  beHeve,  help  Thou  mine  unbelief,"  is 
the  best  possible  expression  of  the  only  becoming 
attitude  of  mind  on  the  subject.  The  whole  question 
is  well  summed  up  by  Dr.  Illingworth  as  follows  :  ^ 
"  If  the   Incarnation  was  a  fact,  and  Jesus   Christ  was 

^  "  Divine  Immanence,"  pp.  88-90. 


68  LIFEOFCHRIST 

what  He  claimed  to  be,  His  miracles,  so  far  from 
being  improbable,  will  appear  the  most  natural  thing  in 
the  world.  .  .  .  They  are  so  essentially  a  part  of  the 
character  depicted  in  the  Gospels  that  without  them 
that  character  would  entirely  disappear.  They  flow 
naturally  from  a  Person  who,  despite  His  obvious 
humanity,  impresses  us  throughout  as  being  at  home 
in  two  worlds.  .  .  .  We  cannot  separate  the  wonderful 
life,  or  the  wonderful  teaching,  from  the  wonderful 
works.  They  involve  and  interpenetrate  and  presuppose 
each  other,  and  form  in  their  insoluble  combination  one 
harmonious  picture." 


CHAPTER  V 

THE    TEACHING 

In  the  mission  which  Jesus  came   into  the  world  to 

accompHsh  the  work  of  teaching  holds  a  very  important 

place.     He  came  to  "  open  the  blind  eyes  and  to  bring 

out  the  prisoners  from  the  dungeon,"  to  dissipate  ancient 

prejudices,  and  to  set  forth  wider  views  of  truth.     For 

such  work  His  contemporaries  were  well  prepared.     To 

them  the  figure  of  the  Rabbi  was  a  familiar  one,  and 

could  always  command  an  audience.     This  was  the  ready 

mould  into  which  Jesus  shaped  His  work.     But  He  was 

much  more  than  a  teacher,  much  more  than  an  ordinary 

Rabbi.     He  was  Himself  the  greater  part  of  His  teaching. 

He  set  before  men  not  so  much  truth  in  the  abstract, 

but  truth  embodied  in  a  person.     He  exemplified  His 

own  doctrine.     With   astonishing    boldness    He   called 

men  and  women  unto  Himself,  and  set  before  them  in 

His  own  Person  the  example  they  were  to  follow  and  the 

way  they  were  to  tread.     He  taught  them  with  authority, 

i.e.  as  one  who  had  a  right  to  speak,  about  the  deep 

69 


70  LIFE    OF    CHRIST 

things  of  God,  and  about  the  application  of  them  to  the 
simple  problems  of  every-day  life.  Life  in  its  broadest  as 
well  as  in  its  narrowest  sense  was  His  subject,  and  He 
was  Himself  the  Life,  the  Truth,  and  the  Way.  In  recent 
years  there  has  been  a  great  revival  of  interest  in  the 
teaching  of  Jesus,  and  in  its  application  to  the  problems 
of  social  service  and  individual  development.  It  is 
recognised  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Son  of  man  is  con- 
cerned not  merely  with  theology  but  with  ethics.  The 
cry,  "Back  to  Christ !"  means  often  "Back  to  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus,"  and  the  effort  to  discover  in  it  principles 
of  conduct  is  among  the  most  healthy  features  of  the 
religious  life  of  to-day.  To  examine  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  in  detail  would  be  far  beyond  the  scope  of  the 
present  inquiry,  but  something  in  the  way  of  outline  or 
summary  must  be  attempted. 

I.  Form  and  Method  of  the  Teaching. — As  in  all 
things  Jesus  accepted  the  conditions  and  limitations  of 
His  environment,  so  in  His  teaching  He  attached  Him- 
self to  Jewish  custom  and  tradition.  He  accepted  the 
role  both  of  the  prophet  and  of  the  scribe,  and  there  was 
a  certain  originality  in  His  combination  of  the  two.  But 
He  identified  Himself  with  no  class  or  party  either  among 
His  predecessors  or  contemporaries.  All  attempts  to 
label  Him  have  proved  failures.  He  stands  altogether 
by  Himself,  and  the  striking  feature  about  His  words 


THE    TEACHING  71 

was  that  "  He  spake  with  authority,  and  not  as  do  the 
scribes."  The  scribe  was  above  everything  else  a 
traditionalist,  bound  hand  and  foot  by  the  past.  Jesus 
used  the  past,  but  used  it  freely,  as  its  master  not  as  its 
slave.  "  It  hath  been  said  unto  you  by  them  of  old 
time — but  I  say  unto  you,"  was  a  familiar  formula  in 
His  mouth.  The  impression  which  He  makes  is  one  of 
strength  and  mastery,  and  this  is  confirmed  both  by  the 
form  and  substance  of  His  doctrine.  "  How  knoweth 
this  man  letters,  having  never  learned  ? "  asked  the 
Pharisees.  They  were  astonished  that  one  who  had  not 
passed  through  their  schools,  and  had  never  taken  their 
degree,  should  show  the  wisdom  and  insight  which  this 
Teacher  possessed.  "  From  whatever  side  we  approach 
the  life  of  Jesus  this  impression  of  mastery  confronts  us. 
On  the  one  hand  is  the  ethical  aspect  of  strength.  .  .  . 
Solemn  exaltations  of  mood,  experiences  of  prolonged 
temptation,  moments  of  mystic  rapture,  occur  indeed 
in  His  career  :  but  when  we  consider  wliat  a  part  these 
emotional  agitations  have  played  in  the  history  of  re- 
ligion, we  are  profoundly  impressed  by  the  sanity,  reserve, 
composure,  and  steadiness  of  the  character  of  Jesus. 
He  is  no  example  of  the  'twice-born'  conception  of 
piety,  which  has  been  of  late  presented  to  us  with  such 
vigour  and  charm.  His  'Religion  of  Healthy-minded- 
ness '  is  not  a  psychopathic  emotionalism,  but  a  normal, 


72  LIFE-  OF    CHRIST 

rational,  ethical  growth.  His  method  is  not  that  of 
ecstasy,  vision,  nervous  agitation,  issuing  in  neurological 
saintliness  ;  it  is  educative,  sane,  consistent  with  wise 
service  of  the  world,  capable  of  being  likened  in  an  in- 
finite variety  of  ways  to  the  decisions  and  obligations 
which  every  honest  man  must  meet."  ^ 

These  characteristics  of  strength  and  sanity  belong  also 
to  the  external  form  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  He  is  no 
pedant,  delighting  in  details  of  exposition,  but  broad  and 
free  and  even  familiar  in  His  treatment  of  the  subject. 
He  speaks  to  the  people  in  their  own  language,  dealing 
with  principles  rather  than  details,  and  painting  with  a 
large  and  rapid  brush.  The  truths  He  sets  before  His 
hearers  are  seed  truths,  destined,  perhaps,  to  bear  fruit 
after  a  long  germination,  and  depending  for  their  issue 
upon  the  suitability  of  the  soil  into  which  they  fall.  The 
common  features  of  the  life  of  His  time  are  pressed 
freely  into  service.  The  home,  the  field,  the  market- 
place, the  highw^ay,  and  the  synagogue  all  serve  for  back- 
grounds, and  His  treatment  of  them  shows  Him  to  be 
a  master  of  expression.  But  this  local  colour  is  so  used 
as  not  to  blur  the  note  of  universality  in  the  teaching. 
It  is  with  man  as  man  that  Jesus  deals.  He  uses  the 
conditions  to  which  He  was  subject  as  their  master,  and 

^  "Jesus  Christ  and  the  Christian  Character,"  by  F.  G.  Peabody, 
PP-  54.  55- 


THE   TEACHING  73 

by  means  of  them  speaks  to  the  universal  heart  of  man. 
This  is  perhaps  best  seen  in  His  favourite  device  of  the 
parable,  a  form  into  which  much  of  the  teaching  is  cast, 
and  which  needs  some  special  notice.  The  term  parable 
means  the  setting  of  one  thing  beside  another  for  pur- 
poses of  instruction  by  comparison  or  contrast.  It  is 
to  be  distinguished  from  fable  and  myth  and  from  teach- 
ing by  allegory.  The  parables  of  Jesus  are,  generally 
speaking,  simple  earthly  stories  or  incidents  used  for  the 
purposes  of  spiritual  instruction  by  analogy.  They  are 
of  great  literary  beauty,  and  so  pointed  and  even  obvious 
that  the  most  uninstructed  hearer  can  hardly  fail  to 
grasp  their  lesson.  Some  of  them  are  very  brief,  hardly 
more  than  proverbs  and  seed  parables.  Others,  again, 
are  longer  and  more  elaborate,  and  need  interpretation 
before  their  full  meaning  can  be  grasped.  Most  of 
them  have  to  do  with  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and 
set  forth  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  "  em- 
bodied in  a  tale."  The  parables  have  been  variously 
classified,  the  simplest  method  being  that  followed  by 
Edersheim.  He  divides  them  into  three  groups,  distin- 
guished by  the  time  and  place  of  their  delivery,  (i) 
Those  belonging  to  the  ministry  in  and  near  Capernaum, 
given  in  Matt,  xiii.;  (2)  those  belonging  to  the  journeyings 
from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem,  given  in  Luke  x.  18;  and 
(3)  those  belonging  to  the  last  days  in  Jerusalem.     The 


74  LIFE    OF    CHRIST 

first  group  deals  mainly  with  the  kingdom  as  a  whole, 
the  second  with  individual  members  of  the  kingdom, 
and  the  third  with  the  judgment  passed  on  members  of 
the  kingdom.  It  was  a  very  profound  insight  which 
led  Jesus  Christ  to  the  use  of  this  form  of  teaching. 
It  appealed  most  effectively  to  the  kind  of  people  with 
whom  He  had  to  deal,  and  yet  required  on  their  part 
some  sympathy  with  His  point  of  view.  Only  on  such 
an  assumption  can  we  understand  the  very  difficult 
references  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  to  the  prophecy  in 
Isaiah  vi.  9-10,  which  would  seem  to  imply  that  the  para- 
bles were  used  to  darken  counsel  and  to  bring  on  those 
who  failed  to  understand  them  a  greater  condemnation. 
The  very  word  of  God  is  a  means  of  judging  men  ;  their 
attitude  to  it  fixes  their  attitude  to  Him.  In  regard  to 
the  interpretation  of  the  parables  there  has  always  been 
some  difference  of  opinion  between  those,  on  the  one 
hand,  who  are  content  to  discover  the  main  lesson,  and 
those,  on  the  other,  who  insist  on  finding  some  cryptic 
significance  in  the  smallest  details.  The  safe  rule  is  to 
follow  the  method  which  Jesus  Himself  indicates  in  His 
own  interpretation  of  the  parable  of  the  Sower,  in  which 
He  draws  out  the  lesson  of  the  various  parts  of  the  story 
in  the  simplest  possible  way,  and  avoids  all  fantastic 
elaborations. 

A  distinction  has  to  be  drawn  between  the  teaching 


THE    TEACHING  7.^ 

given  to  the  disciples  and  the  preaching  to  the  multitudes. 
It  is  not,  perhaps,  always  possible  clearly  to  separate  the 
two  in  the  Gospel  narratives,  but  there  are  certain  broad 
lines  of  demarcation  which  may  be  observed.  In  the 
training  of  the  Twelve,  Jesus  followed  more  closely  the 
example  of  the  Rabbis.  He  gathered  the  little  circle 
round  Him,  and  spoke  in  intimate  terms  of  the  scope  and 
purpose  and  difficulties  of  His  Messianic  work.  With 
the  crowd  He  dealt,  naturally,  in  more  popular  fashion, 
and  laid  the  foundations  of  His  doctrine  broad  and 
strong.  This  does  not  imply,  however,  that  Jesus  left 
with  His  followers  any  systematic  body  of  teaching. 
The  only  actual  words  that  He  taught  were  those  of  the 
Lord's  Prayer.  For  the  rest  His  teaching  was  occa- 
sional, and  dependent  on  the  incidents  and  circum- 
stances He  met  with.  The  main  impression  He  left 
behind  was  that  of  His  Person.  That  evidently  over- 
shadowed His  sayings,  and  only  after  He  had  left  them 
did  the  disciples  remember  that  He  had  said  such  and 
such  things.  His  conflict  with  Rabbinism  was  not 
merely  directed  against  the  traditionalism  of  the  scribes' 
interpretation  of  the  Law,  but  also  against  their  methods. 
He  was  never  a  teacher  in  the  same  sense  that  they  were. 
2 .  The  Subject-matter  of  the  Teaching : — 
{a)  God  the  Father. — Every  new  religion  begins  in  a 
new  revelation  of  God,  or  in  a  new  emphasis  upon  some 


76  LIFEOFCHRIST 

hitherto  half-understood  aspect  of  the  Divine  nature. 
Just  as  the  starting-point  of  the  religion  of  Israel  was  the 
new  name  of  Yahweh  given  to  God,  so  it  is  often  claimed 
that  the  central  point  in  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  His  con- 
ception of  the  Fatherhood  of  God.  There  is,  of  course, 
nothing  new  in  the  idea.  Jesus  accepts  a  name  for 
God  which  was  already  familiar,  but  fills  it  with  a  content 
and  meaning  of  His  own.  The  determining  factor  in  this 
is  His  own  relationship  to  God  as  Son,  and  it  is  from 
that  point  that  all  His  doctrine  of  God  begins.  As 
Ritschl  says,  the  distinctive  New  Testament  name  for 
God  is  "the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ," 
so  deep  was  the  impression  which  Jesus'  own  personal 
intuition  of  God  made  upon  those  who  first  heard  Him. 
The  fact  that  He  is  Himself  conscious  of  an  unique 
relationship  to  God  is  decisive  in  all  His  interpretation 
of  God  to  mankind.  No  exposition  of  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  can  be  fair  or  complete  which  ignores  this  initial 
and  fundamental  fact.  From  this  point  of  view  the  use 
of  the  term  Son  of  God  for  Jesus  in  the  New  Testament 
is  worth  careful  study,  and  serves  to  indicate  not  only 
the  conception  which  the  Church  had  formed  in  regard 
to  Him  but  the  position  which  He  Himself  assumed. 
He  came  into  the  world  to  do  His  Father's  business 
(Luke  ii.  49),  and  the  consciousness  of  His  communion 
with  the  Father  and   of  the  Father's   approval  of  His 


THE    TEACHING  77 

work  sustained  Him  throughout.  It  is  undoubtedly 
this  reading  of  His  own  relationship  to  the  Father  that 
regulates  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  God  and 
man.  He  speaks  to  the  disciples  of  "  My  Father  and 
yours,"  and  teaches  them  to  pray,  "  Our  Father  who  art 
in  Heaven."  This  means  a  considerable  advance  upon 
the  old  conception  of  a  Fatherhood  derived  from  the 
fact  of  creation  or  generation.  With  Jesus  the  term 
Fatherhood  describes  even  something  more  than  a 
relationship.  It  gives  the  essence  or  spirit  which 
determines  God's  action  and  lies  behind  it  all.  The 
parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son  (Luke  xv.  11-32)  shows  the 
fatherly  spirit  in  action,  and  gives  as  the  object  of  its 
concern  not  merely  Israel,  but  sinful  men  of  all  kinds ; 
and  it  is  noteworthy  that  Jesus  is  addressing  not  the 
disciples  but  the  multitude  when  He  says,  "Call  no  man 
your  Father  on  earth :  for  one  is  your  Father,  who  is  in 
heaven"  (Matt,  xxiii.  1-9).  In  the  Fourth  Gospel,  as  is 
perhaps  natural,  greater  stress  still  is  laid  on  the  univer- 
sality of  the  Divine  Fatherhood.  God  is  the  Father  of  all 
men  because  He  loves  them.  This  conception  of  God, 
however,  does  not  in  any  way  detract  from  the  strength 
and  sternness  of  the  ethics  of  Jesus.  God's  relation  to 
man  is  not  resolved  by  it,  as  is  sometimes  supposed, 
into  mere  sentimentalism.  The  stress  which  Jesus  lays 
upon  the  love  of  God  only  serves  to  throw  into  darker 


78  LIFEOFCHRIST 

shadow  the  horror  of  man's  sin.  Sin  against  a  father 
has  a  deeper  stain  of  guilt  than  sin  against  one  who  is 
only  a  king  or  a  judge.  It  does  not  even  require 
positive  transgression ;  the  mere  absence  of  trust  and 
love  may  constitute  sin.  Therefore  forgiveness  becomes 
altogether  a  more  difficult  thing,  and  the  conception  of 
God's  Fatherhood,  so  far  from  doing  away  with  the  need 
for  atonement  and  reconciliation,  makes  these  things 
the  more  imperative. 

But  in  the  view  of  Jesus,  God's  love  to  men  takes  the 
form  not  merely  of  redemption  but  of  providence.  As 
their  Father,  God  knows  the  needs  of  men,  and  will  supply 
them  without  fail.  It  was  surely  from  the  depths  of  His 
own  consciousness  of  the  Divine  presence  and  love  that 
Jesus  spoke  those  striking  words  about  God's  clothing 
of  the  fields  and  care  for  the  birds,  and  warned  IT  is 
hearers  against  being  over-anxious  about  food  and 
raiment  in  the  presence  of  a  Father  who  "knoweth 
that  ye  have  need  of  these  things."  It  is  heathenish  to 
care  for  these  things  so  much,  and  Jesus  inculcates  a 
spirit,  not  of  thriftless  improvidence,  as  is  sometimes 
thought,  but  of  quiet  trust  and  freedom  from  worry.  It 
is  the  spirit  which  Frank  Buckland  showed  when  he  said 
in  his  dying  moments,  "  God,  who  takes  such  care  of  the 
little  fishes,  will  not  forget  their  inspector."  There  is 
thus  every  reason  to  believe  that  those  expositors  are 


THE    TEACHING  79 

right  who  insist  that  in  the  mind  of  Jesus  man's  relation 
to  God  is  Hke  that  of  young  children  to  an  earthly 
father.  The  truly  religious  spirit  is  the  childlike  spirit — 
the  spirit  of  humble  trust  and  willing  obedience.  This 
is  the  natural  attitude  of  the  soul  to  God,  and  it  contains 
within  it  vast  potentialities.  The  distinction  between 
natural  and  real  sonship  is  valid  enough,  and  indeed 
necessary.  God  is  the  Father  of  all,  but  He  can  only 
be  known  as  Father  by  those  who  accept  the  position  of 
sons,  and  who  work  out  their  sonship  in  daily  experience. 
Originally  God's  relationship  to  man  is  something  more 
than  merely  physical.  The  fact  of  creation  involves 
certain  powers  and  possibilities  in  the  creatures,  and 
these  are  capable  of  development.  Not,  however,  till  they 
are  developed  does  the  full  meaning  of  the  Divine  image 
in  which  they  are  made  dawn  upon  men.  It  was  not 
the  least  among  the  aims  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  to 
bring  home  to  men  first  the  fact  of  this  Divine  relation- 
ship, and  then  to  show  them  the  way  to  its  fuller 
realisation.  It  is  in  Him  that  men  reach  a  true  con- 
ception of  the  meaning  of  God's  Fatherhood,  and  He 
becomes  to  them  the  way  to  the  Father.  It  is  true  to 
say  that  God  is  the  Father  of  all  men,  and  that  all  are 
by  nature  His  sons,  but  it  is  only  by  grace  that  they 
enter  into  the  full  range  and  meaning  and  enjoyment  of 
their  sonship. 


8o  LIFEOFCHRIST 

This  conception  of  God  and  of  the  attitude  of  men 
towards  Him  is  well  illustrated  by  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
in  regard  to  prayer.  Here,  again,  He  taught  by  example 
as  well  as  by  precept.     To  Him  that 

"  Still  communion,  which  transcends 
The  imperfect  offices  of  prayer  and  praise," 

was  a  necessity  of  the  spiritual  life  and  a  condition  of 
spiritual  activity.  It  was  His  custom  to  retire  frequently 
and  at  stated  seasons,  that  He  might  pray  in  secret  to 
the  Father  who  seeth  in  secret.  He  desiderated  on  the 
part  of  His  followers  the  same  constant  and  vivid  com- 
munion with  God,  in  order  that  they,  too,  might  be  able 
to  work  the  works  of  God  in  the  world.  As  we  have 
seen  already,  He  gave  them  in  the  Lord's  Prayer  a 
definite  form  of  petition,  and  one  that  throws  much  light 
on  His  conception  of  their  needs  and  of  the  will  of  (jod 
in  regard  to  them.  Its  petitions  mingle  the  simplicity 
of  the  child  with  the  sublime  ambitions  of  the  saint,  and 
the  needs  of  the  physical  life  with  those  of  the  spiritual 
in  a  very  striking  fashion.  Not  less  remarkable  is  the 
constant  insistence  of  Jesus  on  the  need  for  reality  in 
prayer.  It  is  well  that  we  should  really  speak  to  God 
and  tell  Him  what  we  need,  though  He  knoweth  what 
things  we  have  need  of  already.  It  is  as  though  the 
Father  delighted  in  the  free  requests  of  His  children. 


THE    TEACH  ING  8i 

But  they  are  not  to  use  vain  repetitions  as  the  heathen 
do.  Men  are  not  heard  for  their  much  speaking,  but 
for  the  spirit  in  which  they  speak.  Nor  are  they  to 
imagine  that  they  can  by  prayer  impose  their  wills  upon 
God.  "  Thy  will  be  done  "  is  the  beginning  and  end  of 
all  true  prayer,  and  its  object  to  bring  the  will  of  man 
into  closer  accord  with  that  of  God.  Simplicity  of 
speech,  sincerity  of  thought,  and  submission  of  the  will 
are  thus  the  three  conditions  of  approach  to  God  which 
Jesus  implicitly  lays  down.  They  present  us  with  a 
conception  of  man's  relationship  to  God,  in  which  there 
is  a  fine  blending  of  childlike  trust  and  godly  fear. 


CHAPTER   VI 

THE   TEACHING   (consumed) 

(if)  Chrisfs  Doctrine  of  Man. — The  teaching  of  Jesus 
in  regard  to  God  necessarily  involved  a  deeper  and 
fuller  conception  of  humanity  than  was  current  among 
His  contemporaries.  It  would  be  a  mistake,  however, 
to  suggest  that  Jesus  formulated  a  definite  anthropology 
or  set  forth  His  views  of  human  nature  in  any  formal 
fashion.  His  teaching  on  the  subject  has  to  be  gathered 
from  things  He  took  for  granted  rather  than  from  any 
set  pronouncements.  Even  thus,  however,  it  is  suffi- 
ciently explicit,  as  its  consequences  in  Apostolic  doctrine 
clearly  enough  indicate.  The  spirit  of  Jesus  was  in 
marked  contrast  to  the  jealous  exclusiveness  of  the 
Judaism  of  His  day.  He  was  sent  first.  He  admitted, 
to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel,  but  He  had 
other  sheep  which  were  not  of  this  fold.  He  was  con- 
cerned with  man  as  man,  and  not  as  Jew  or  Greek, 
bond  or   free.     His  purpose  on  the  earth  was  to  save 

men,  and  the  mere  statement  of  this  purpose  involved 

82 


THE    TEACHING  83 

the  belief  in  the  salvability  of  all  men.  The  sharpest 
criticism  of  His  contemporaries  was  aroused  by  the  fact 
that  Jesus  was  concerned  to  meet  on  the  footing  of  a 
common  humanity  with  those  whom  the  world  con- 
sidered to  be  outcasts.  "  He  eateth  and  drinketh  with 
publicans  and  sinners"  (Matt.  xi.  19,  Luke  xv.  i)  be- 
came the  first  and  chief  count  in  their  indictment  against 
Him.  Jesus  accepted  to  the  full  the  fact  of  man's  sin, 
with  its  awful  consequences  in  sorrow  and  suffering. 
But  He  also  accepted  the  fact  of  man's  freedom,  and 
therefore  of  the  possibility  of  his  co-operation  in  the  act 
of  healing  and  forgiveness.  In  His  eyes  sinners  were 
"  the  lost " ;  but,  to  Him,  whatever  was  lost  might  be 
saved.  He  preached  a  Gospel  of  hope.  And  He  saved 
sinners  like  Matthew  the  publican  and  Mary  the  Mag- 
dalen, because  in  Him  they  realised  for  the  first  time 
that  there  was  hope  even  for  them.  In  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  man  is  therefore  a  being  of  infinite  worth,  because 
of  a  genuinely  spiritual  nature  and  Divine  capability. 
And  it  was  in  order  to  make  these  possibilities  actual 
that  Jesus  came  into  the  world.  These  are  the  "glad 
tidings  "  of  God  which  He  has  to  bring. 

(c)  The  Kingdom  of  God. — The  vehicle  in  which  the 
message  of  Jesus  to  mankind  was  conveyed  is  known  as 
His  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  of  God  or  of  heaven. 
Both  He  and  John  the  Baptist  came  preaching  that  the 


84  LIFEOFCHRIST 

kingdom  of  heaven  was  at  hand ;  but  though  the  text 
in  both  cases  was  the  same,  a  very  different  interpreta- 
tion has  to  be  put  upon  it.  John  represented  the  old 
dispensation,  and  his  view  of  the  kingdom  closely  re- 
sembled the  Messianic  teaching  of  the  prophets.  It 
involved  an  ethical  revival  as  a  preliminary  to  the  re- 
establishment  of  the  theocracy.  With  Jesus,  however, 
the  kingdom  is  something  much  more  original  and 
positive.  It  is  at  once  present  and  future,  actual  and 
ideal.  It  means  the  reign  of  God  in  humanity.  The 
kingdom  comes  when  men  do  the  will  of  God,  and 
comes  in  all  men  who  do  His  will.  It  is  not  an  organi- 
sation but  a  spirit,  not  a  society  but  a  temper,  an  instinct, 
an  attitude.  It  is  among  or  within  men,  and  it  comes 
without  observation ;  nevertheless  the  fruits  of  it  are 
manifest,  and  in  God's  good  time  it  will  be  consummated 
in  the  universal  humanity  of  which  Jesus  Christ  Him- 
self is  the  head.  Jesus'  preaching  of  the  kingdom  was 
without  either  form  or  detail.  Our  idea  of  it  has  to  be 
gathered  from  many  scattered  references,  parables,  and 
apocalyptic  sayings.  In  the  interpretation  of  these  there 
is  room  for  wide  diversities  of  opinion,  but,  in  spite  of 
this,  the  general  features  of  the  kingdom  are  sufficiently 
distinct,  and  afford  a  picture  of  exceeding  interest  and 
spiritual  beauty. 

It  is  now  generally  agreed  that  both  terms,  "  kingdom 


THE    TEACHING  85 

of  God  "  and  "  kingdom  of  heaven,"  were  used  by  Jesus 
Himself,  the  latter  being  probably  an  euphemism  for 
the  former,  and  that  they  mean  a  ruling  of  earthly  things 
according  to  Divine  or  heavenly  laws.  The  conception 
was  one  which  the  Messianic  prophecies  had  made 
familiar  to  the  contemporaries  of  Jesus,  but  His  first 
work  was  to  dissociate  it  from  some  of  the  ideas  with 
which  it  was  inevitably  connected  in  the  popular  mind. 
As  Sanday  says,  "  The  contemporaries  of  Jesus,  when 
they  spoke  of  'the  kingdom  of  God,'  thought  chiefly 
of  an  empire  contrasted  with  the  great  world-empires, 
more  especially  the  Roman,  which  galled  them  at  the 
moment.  And  the  two  features  which  caught  their 
imagination  most  were  the  throwing  off  of  the  hated 
yoke  and  the  transference  of  supremacy  from  the  heathen 
to  Israel.  This  was  to  be  brought  about  by  a  catas- 
trophe which  was  to  close  the  existing  order  of  things, 
and  which  therefore  took  a  shape  which  was  eschato- 
logical."  Of  Jesus'  doctrine  of  the  last  things  in 
connection  with  the  kingdom  we  shall  speak  later. 
Meanwhile  it  is  important  to  note  that  He  gave  no  counte- 
nance to  the  popular  desire  for  a  revolt  against  Rome, 
and  that  His  teaching  throughout  takes  a  spiritual  rather 
than  a  material  or  political  form.  No  doubt  the  prin- 
ciples which  He  inculcated  had  vast  social  and  political 
consequences,  but  it  was  with  the  principles  themselves 


86  LIFEOFCHRIST 

that  He  was  chiefly  concerned.  The  parable  of  the 
leaven  exactly  expresses  the  situation.  He  hid  the 
leaven  of  His  teaching  in  human  hearts,  and  it  has  been 
working  ever  since,  and  will  go  on  working  to  the  end 
of  time. 

Thus  Jesus'  idea  of  the  kingdom  was  not  that  of  a 
philosophy  slowly  developing  in  the  minds  of  men,  but 
of  a  supernatural  power  descending  as  it  were  upon  them 
from  the  without  and  the  beyond.  The  kingdom 
''comes,"  "is  given,"  "is  prepared,"  has  to  be  "in- 
herited," "sought  for,"  and  " entered  into."  As  Bousset 
puts  it :  "  Jesus  did  not  say  to  the  people,  '  The  moment 
has  arrived  for  you  to  do  something  that  the  kingdom 
may  come,  for  you  to  compel  its  coming  ; '  that  was  the 
captivating  message  of  the  fanatical  patriots  who  sought 
to  effect  insurrections  in  Galilee  at  that  time.  But  to 
Jesus  it  was  absolutely  certain  that  the  every-day  doings 
and  the  earthly  labour  of  man  could  not  bring  the 
coming  of  the  kingdom  one  finger's-breadth  nearer. 
For  Him  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  was  something 
entirely  miraculous  and  future.  The  living  Almighty 
God,  and  He  alone,  will  set  up  His  miraculous  kingdom." 
That  the  perfecting  of  the  kingdom  will  not  come  about 
till  the  distant  future  Jesus  makes  abundantly  dear,  but 
it  is  equally  part  of  His  teaching  that  the  kingdom  has 
its  beginning  in  the  hearts  of  men  here  and  now.     It 


THE    TEACHING  gy 

means  the  working  of  invisible  laws,  which  gradually 
extend  their  operation  until  the  time  comes  when  all 
men  are  under  their  sway.  There  is  very  little  doubt 
that  the  Christian  Church  is  the  instrument  by  which 
Jesus  intended  that  His  kingdom  should  be  advanced 
in  the  world — a  view  which  supplies  the  only  possible 
answer  to  the  vexed  question  as  to  the  relation  between 
the  kingdom  and  the  Church.  The  Church  is  an  in- 
stitution and  the  kingdom  an  influence,  and  the  two  are 
never  to  be  identified.  They  stand  rather  in  the  rela- 
tion of  means  and  end,  the  Church  being  the  divinely 
appointed  means  for  the  realisation  of  the  Divine  ends 
of  the  kingdom.  The  kingdom  is  thus  the  wider  and 
the  Church  the  narrower  and  more  limited  conception. 
The  Church,  too,  is  to  be  estimated  by  the  success  with 
which  it  fulfils  the  aims  which  the  kingdom  sets  before  it, 
and  prepares  the  way  for  the  final  and  universal  reign  of 
God  among  men.  It  would  be  quite  in  accordance  with 
the  ideas  of  Jesus  to  regard  the  Church  as  the  soil  which 
receives  the  good  seed  of  the  kingdom,  so  that  it  germi- 
nates and  puts  forth,  first  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  and 
then  the  full  corn  in  the  ear.  Many  of  the  parables 
emphasise  the  idea  that  the  growth  of  the  kingdom 
can  only  be  slow,  but  they  look  forward  at  the  same 
time  to  a  final  establishment  of  the  reign  of  God  in 
righteousness,  when  the  kingdom  shall  have  "come." 


88  LIFE    OF    CHRIST 

The  nature  of  the  kingdom  is  perhaps  best  understood 
from  the  conditions  which  Jesus  laid  down  for  entrance 
into  it,  and  from  the  qualities  which  were  expected 
of  its  members.  The  preaching  of  the  kingdom  was 
always  associated  with  repentance,  and  no  man  could 
enter  it  until  he  had  come  to  himself  as  did  the  Prodigal 
in  the  parable.  Change  of  heart,  revolt  against  the 
sinful  past,  and  acceptance  of  a  new  role,  were  the  inevit- 
able beginnings  of  the  new  life.  "  Except  ye  turn,  and 
become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  "  (Matt,  xviii.  3).  In  the  Fourth 
Gospel  the  new  life  of  the  kingdom  is  entered  by  a  new 
birth,  which  is  accompanied  by  a  baptism  of  water  and 
of  the  Spirit  (John  iii.  5).  That  baptism  was  to  be  the 
sign  of  entrance  into  the  kingdom  rather  than  a  condition 
precedent  was  assumed  from  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  It 
was  a  token  of  the  Divine  forgiveness  which  always 
followed  the  act  of  repentance.  It  is  quite  clear  that 
in  the  mind  of  Jesus  the  spiritual  change  necessary  to 
membership  in  His  kingdom  was  positive  as  well  as 
negative;  that  it  not  only  left  the  things  that  were 
behind,  but  reached  forward  to  the  things  that  were 
before.  It  involved,  that  is  to  say,  the  putting  on  of 
what  the  Apostle  Paul  came  afterwards  to  call  a  new 
man  in  Christ  Jesus.  The  descriptions  of  this  new  man, 
and  of  the  lineaments  of  his  character,  are  among  the 


THE    TEACHING  89 

most  notable  things  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  The  note 
of  childlikeness,  simpHcity,  and  humble  trust  struck 
at  the  outset  is  dominant  all  through.  The  ideal  thus 
depicted  stands  in  marked  contrast  to  most  other  ideals 
of  human  character,  and  especially  to  those  chiefly  in 
vogue  in  the  ancient  world.  There  could  hardly  be  a 
deeper  distinction  than  that  between  the  magnanimous 
man  of  Aristotle  and  the  Christian  as  Christ  painted  him. 
In  the  ancient  as  in  the  modern  world,  the  pushful  and 
aggressive  virtues  were  those  most  in  favour.  The  sons 
of  the  kingdom,  however,  were  to  be  distinguished 
chiefly  by  meekness,  poverty  of  spirit  (which  does  not 
mean  poor-spiritedness),  mercifulness,  purity  of  heart, 
humility,  and  the  like.  Love  to  God  and  to  one's  neigh- 
bour summed  up  for  them  the  whole  duty  of  man,  and 
their  love  of  their  neighbours  was  to  be  shown  by  a 
spirit  of  service  and  self-denial  in  all  their  relations  with 
their  fellows.  The  type  of  character  set  forth  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  beautiful  and  attractive  as  it  is, 
has  never  won  the  place  either  in  Christian  preaching 
or  in  Christian  practice  that  it  deserves.  Yet  there  can 
be  no  question  that  Jesus  meant  every  word  that  He 
spoke  in  this  connection,  and  that  the  kingdom  of  God 
will  only  come  when  men  and  women  are  framed  on 
this  model  and  exhibit  this  spirit.  Both  in  the  ancient 
and  in  the  modern  world  the  ideal  of  Jesus  has  been 


90  LIFEOFCHRIST 

rejected  as  unpractical,  and  as  impossible  of  realisation 
in  any  organised  society.  But  the  best  commendation 
of  an  ideal  is  the  difficulty  of  realising  it,  and  the  ethical 
teaching  of  Jesus  is  known  and  justified  by  its  fruits. 
Already  it  has  profoundly  modified  the  whole  of  human 
conduct.  It  has  entered  human  society  like  the  leaven 
of  the  parable,  and  if  the  whole  lump  is  not  yet  leavened 
that  is  only  to  say  that  the  kingdom  is  not  yet  come. 
It  must  be  remembered,  too,  that  Jesus  was  legislating 
for  a  society  within  society,  that  He  aimed  and  aims  still 
to  reform  society  from  above,  and  that  new  conditions 
are  needed  before  His  precepts  can  have  full  scope. 
The  ethics  of  Jesus  are  inseparable  from  His  religion, 
and  the  two  taken  together  form  a  combination  of  irre- 
sistible beauty  and  strength.  "  It  was  not  an  accident 
that  Christianity  is  the  religion  of  the  Crucified.  The 
Cross  is  like  the  culminating  expression  of  a  spirit  which 
was  characteristic  of  it  throughout.  Its  peculiar  note  is, 
Victory  through  suffering.  An  idea  like  that  of  Islam, 
making  its  way  by  the  sword,  was  abhorrent  to  it  from  the 
first.  Jesus  came  to  be  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews,  but  the 
narratives  of  the  Temptation  teach  us  that,  from  the  very 
beginning  of  His  career.  He  stripped  off  from  His  con- 
ception of  the  Messiahship  all  that  was  political,  all 
thought  of  propagating  His  claims  by  force.  A  new 
mode  of  propagating  religion  was  deliberately  chosen, 


THE    TEACHING  91 

and  carried  through  with  uncompromising  thoroughness. 
The  disciple  was  not  above  his  Master ;  and  the  example 
which  Jesus  set  in  founding  His  faith  by  dying  for  it, 
was  an  example  which  His  disciples  were  called  upon 
to  follow  into  all  its  logical  consequences.  Christianity, 
the  true  Christianity,  carries  no  arms :  it  wins  its  way 
by  lowly  service,  by  patience,  by  self-sacrifice."  ^ 

One  of  the  chief  gains  of  modern  Biblical  study  is  an 
ethical  rather  than  a  metaphysical  interpretation  of  the 
Person  of  Jesus  Christ.  Perhaps  the  only  justification 
of  that  much-abused  cry,  "  Back  to  Christ ! "  is  that  it 
leads  us  to  explain  Him  in  the  light  of  His  own  teaching 
rather  than  in  that  of  any  system  of  human  philosophy. 
And  no  one  can  deny  that  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  the 
ethical  element  largely  predominates.  It  has  already 
been  pointed  out  that  He  was  Himself  the  doctrine  He 
taught.  In  His  own  Person  is  to  be  found  the  best  ex- 
emplification of  His  words.  He  called  men  and  women 
to  come  unto  Him  and  to  follow  Him,  that  in  so  doing 
they  might  find  the  true  life  of  God  in  the  world.  It 
was  no  ascetic  ideal  to  which  He  pointed  His  followers, 
but  a  life  of  active  service  both  of  God  and  man.  The 
righteousness  of  the  kingdom  was  to  be  both  higher  and 
better  than  the  current  Jewish  righteousness  of  the 
time,  strict  and  scrupulous  as  that  was.     Jesus  did  not 

^  Sanday,  "  Outlines  of  the  Life  of  Christ,"  p.  88. 


92  LIFEOFCHRIST 

despise  law,  but  His  law  was  a  very  different  thing  from 
the  outward  legalism  of  the  Pharisees.  He  looked  at 
motive,  intention,  and  desire  as  being  at  least  as  signi- 
ficant morally  as  their  outward  expression  in  conduct. 
The  will  to  do,  rather  than  the  act,  was  the  all-important 
factor  in  His  eyes.  Humble  submission  of  the  will  to 
the  rule  of  God  in  the  soul  is  the  only  way  to  true 
blessedness.  This  means  a  relationship  to  God  based 
on  love  and  expressed  in  prayers  and  filial  obedience. 
It  means  also  that  the  disciple  learns  to  see  as  with 
God's  eyes  and  to  judge  others  more  as  He  judges  them, 
and  so  to  behave  towards  them  in  a  spirit  of  true  self- 
forgetfulness  and  charity  (cf.  Matt.  vii.  21).  The  type 
of  character  which  Jesus  strove  to  bring  about  in  men 
is  based  on  struggle,  discipline,  and  self-denial.  His 
ethical  teaching,  though  social  in  its  consequences,  is 
based  on  a  keen  appreciation  of  the  value  of  the  in- 
dividual soul,  which  can  only  find  itself  by  complete 
submission  to  God  and  an  exclusive  passion  for  spiritual 
ends.  This  explains  the  apparent  harshness  and  diffi- 
culty of  some  of  the  precepts  of  Jesus,  e.g.  "  Resist 
not  him  that  is  evil"  (Matt.  v.  39);  "  Give  to  him  that 
asketh  thee  "  (Matt.  v.  42) ;  "  If  any  man  love  father  or 
mother  more  than  me,"  &c.  (Luke  xiv.  26  and  Matt. 
X.  27),  and  the  like.  These  and  many  other  sayings  of 
the  same  kind  are  not  to  be  interpreted  as  universal .  and 


THE    TEACHING  93 

unalterable  laws,  but  rather  as  laying  down  principles 
which  have  to  be  applied  by  the  men  of  every  age 
according  to  the  circumstances  in  which  they  are 
placed.  Just  as  the  stress  of  Jesus  is  laid  on  dis- 
positions rather  than  on  single  actions,  so  the  life  of 
the  kingdom  will  be  regulated  not  by  the  details  of  a 
complete  legal  system  but  by  the  free  and  intelligent 
service  of  dedicated  spirits.  Beside  purity  of  heart, 
singleness  of  purpose,  and  love,  all  other  things  have 
only  relative  values,  and  will  fall  into  their  proper  place. 
To  put  first  things  first  was  the  aim  of  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  and  the  kingdom  was  the  sphere  in  which  this 
teaching  was  to  be  practised. 


CHAPTER   VII 

THE   TEACHING   {concluded) 

(d)  The  Messiah, — Every  student  of  the  life  of  Jesus 
Christ  is  faced  with  the  question,  "What  was  His 
relationship  to  the  Messianic  teaching  and  expectation 
of  His  day  ?  "  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  aim  of  the 
four  Gospels  is  to  prove,  or  at  least  to  set  forth  to  the 
world,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  This 
could  not  be  attempted  without  assuming  that  He  came 
to  fulfil  the  expectation  of  the  people  that  a  Messiah 
(a  divinely  anointed  one)  should  come  and  restore 
the  kingdom  to  Israel.  There  is  no  doubt,  too,  that 
Jesus  Himself  taught  that  this  expectation  was  realised 
in  Himself — and  that  He  stood  in  an  unique  relation- 
ship to  God  on  the  one  hand  and  to  man  on  the 
other.  Proof  of  this,  if  needed,  may  be  found  in 
Peter's  confession  at  Coesarea,  in  the  account  of  the 
entry  into  Jerusalem,  in  Jesus'  oath  before  the  High 
Priest,  and  in  the  Roman  inscription  on  the  Cross. 
The   difficulty  of  the   subject    for    us,   however,   arises 

94 


THE    TEACHING 


95 


from  the  fact  that  the  conception  which  Jesus  Him- 
self held  of  His  vocation  was  widely  different  from 
the  popular  Messianic  ideas  of  His  time.  In  fulfilling 
the  Messianic  conception  He  transformed  it,  and  His 
peculiar  interpretation  of  it  has  to  be  studied  in  all 
its  bearings,  apart  from  its  Old  Testament  model. 

In  the  time  of  Jesus  the  expectation  of  a  Messiah 
was  widely  prevalent  throughout  Palestine  and  the 
whole  Jewish  world,  but  the  forms  which  the  expecta- 
tion took  were  both  various  and  vague.  The  more 
educated  and  religious  sections  of  the  people  based 
their  belief  in  the  Messiah  on  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  and  on  various  apocalyptic  writings,  but 
with  the  vulgar  the  Messianic  hope  took  a  much  more 
political  and  material  shape.  There  is  a  certain  dis- 
tinction to  be  maintained  between  an  earthly  and  a 
heavenly  conception  of  Messiah's  kingdom,  though 
these  were  often  combined,  and  the  same  men  be- 
lieved that  the  Son  of  David  who  should  come  would 
restore  the  political  supremacy  to  Israel.  There  is 
no  clear  proof,  however,  that  the  Messiah  was  re- 
garded as  being  necessarily  divine  or  supernatural,  nor 
can  it  be  shown  that  there  was  any  general  expecta- 
tion that  He  would  suffer  for  the  sins  of  the  people. 
Though  popular  religious  thought  in  the  first  century 
B.C.  was  saturated  with  the   idea  of  the  coming   of  a 


96  LIFEOFCHRIST 

king  who  should  establish  a  new  kingdom  in  peace 
and  righteousness,  the  conception  never  attained  either 
coherence  or  unity.  So  far  as  the  work  of  Jesus  is 
concerned,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  Messianic  idea, 
as  He  found  it,  did  more  than  provide  a  background 
for  His  teaching,  and  a  line  of  thought  which  He 
could  easily  adapt  for  His  purposes.  The  men  and 
women  of  His  own  immediate  circle  were  among  those 
pious  souls  who  were  looking  for  the  consolation  of 
Israel,  and  who  held  the  more  spiritual  view  of  the 
form  which  that  consolation  should  take.  It  was  a 
perfectly  natural  thing  that,  as  their  intimacy  with 
Jesus  grew,  they  should  come  to  attach  to  Him  those 
high  hopes  and  beliefs  which  they  had  long  cherished. 
It  was  also  natural,  and  strictly  in  accordance  with 
His  methods,  that  He  should  use  the  fact  as  the 
vehicle  of  His  larger  teaching.  The  scene  at  Caesarea 
Philippi,  and  the  confession  of  Peter,  witness  to  the 
reality  of  the  disciples'  belief.  But  the  words  of  Jesus, 
"  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon,  son  of  Jonas,  for  flesh  and 
blood  have  not  revealed  it  unto  thee  (e.^:  that  I  am 
the  Christ),  but  my  Father  in  heaven,"  show  that 
He  Himself  admitted  the  position,  and  wished  them 
to  accept  Him  as  the  one  who  was  to  come.  There 
is  practically  no  evidence  for  the  opinion  now  often 
urged,  that  the  disciples  did  not  come  to  regard  Jesus 


THETEACHING  97 

as  Messiah  till  after  His  death.  As  Wernle  says,  "  The 
belief  of  the  disciples  in  their  Messiah  must  be  older 
than  Jesus'  death,  for  it  could  not  entirely  arise  after 
that  death,  which  was  such  a  grievous  disappointment 
to  so  many  expectations.  If  it  is  older  than  Jesus' 
death,  it  is  incredible  that  Jesus  did  not  share  it,  and 
yet  suffered  it  to  be  held." 

We  are  on  much  more  difficult  ground  when  we  come 
to  answer  the  question  as  to  how  far  Jesus  intended  the 
disciples  to  attach  to  Himself  the  popular  Messianic 
conceptions.  This  involves  an  examination  of  the 
whole  of  His  teaching  in  regard  to  Himself  and  to  His 
mission  in  the  world,  and  such  an  examination  results 
in  the  conviction  that  while  Jesus  accepted  the  Mes- 
sianic form,  He  filled  it  with  a  content  that  was  all  His 
own. 

I.  This  is  seen,  in  the  first  place,  in  the  names 
which  Jesus  used  of  Himself.  Of  these,  far  the  most 
important  is  the  term  Son  of  man.  This  is  found  some 
eighty  times  in  the  Gospels,  and  is  generally  regarded 
as  the  title  which  Jesus  used  as  best  expressing  His 
office  among  men.  As  to  its  meaning  very  varied  ex- 
planations have  been  given,  but  of  them  all  only  two 
stand  out  as  deserving  notice.  One  is  that  the  phrase 
is  used  always  in  the  sense  of  its  Aramaic  original,  which 
simply  means  "  man,"  i.e.  in  the  sense  of  "  mankind  "  ; 


98  LIFEOFCHRIST 

and  the  other  is  that  the  term  is  used  in  the  Messianic 
sense  in  which  it  is  frequently  found  in  Daniel  and  the 
Book  of  Enoch,  where  the  Son  of  man  is  a  superhuman 
Person  whose  office  is  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead, 
to  vindicate  the  righteous,  and  to  punish  the  wicked. 
When  we  come  to  study  the  use  of  the  title  by  Jesus 
Himself  there  seems  every  reason  for  believing  that 
both  these  significations  were  involved  in  it.  It  is 
evident  that  the  phrase  was  not  a  new  one,  though  it 
was  not  altogether  familiar  (Matt,  xvi,  13).  It  had  a 
certain  Messianic  content,  and  in  the  usage  of  Jesus 
was  frequently  connected  with  ideas  of  apocalypse  and 
judgment  {cf.  Matt.  xiii.  41,  xvi.  28,  xix.  28,  xxiv.  30, 
XXV.  31,  xxvi.  64,  &c.).  It  is  noteworthy  also  that  the 
phrase  is  used  in  connection  with  His  death  and  suffer- 
ing when  Jesus  foretold  these  things  to  the  disciples 
(Mark  viii.  31).  At  the  same  time,  it  is  clear  that  the 
wider  use  of  the  term  as  equivalent  to  mankind  (or 
perhaps  we  may  say,  the  representative  or  ideal  man) 
was  not  infrequently  before  the  mind  of  Jesus — e.g. 
"  The  Son  of  man  is  Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath."  This 
latter  view,  however,  cannot  be  taken  exclusively  with- 
out doing  violence  to  the  Gospel  narratives.  It  is 
abundantly  clear  that  this  most  significant  title  attests 
the  claim  of  Jesus  to  stand  in  an  unique  relationship  to 
mankind.     It  meant  on  His  lips  that  He  had  the  power 


THE    TEACHING  99 

of  forgiveness  and  judgment,  and  that  the  destinies  of 
the  race  were  in  some  way  bound  up  in  Him. 

The  name  Son  of  God  is  more  frequently  given  to 
Jesus  by  others  than  used  by  Himself.  But  more 
significant  even  than  the  actual  use  of  the  name  is  the 
assumption  of  a  special  filial  relationship  to  God  in- 
volved in  the  words  "  My  Father,"  which  were  so  often 
in  the  mouth  of  Jesus  {cf.  Matt.  vii.  21,  x.  32,  xi.  27, 
&c.).  It  is  quite  evident  that  the  disciples  of  Jesus 
gathered  from  His  teaching  and,  may  we  not  say,  from 
His  prayers,  that  He  was  God's  Son  in  a  very  real  and 
exclusive  sense,  and  that  He  neither  did  nor  said  any- 
thing to  disabuse  them  of  the  idea. 

2.  A  much  more  important  aspect  of  the  Messianic 
consciousness  of  Jesus  is  His  conception  of  the  work 
which  He  had  come  into  the  world  to  do.  This  serves  to 
fill  out  the  content  of  the  names  He  used.  His  mission 
as  He  conceived  it  was  to  save  men  from  their  sins. 
The  notion  of  the  Messiah  as  a  Deliverer  He  made 
all  His  own,  but  the  deliverance  He  contemplated 
was  not  either  political  or  material,  but  spiritual  in  its 
aim  and  scope.  He  came  not  to  set  up  a  new  State, 
but  to  make  new  men.  In  His  eyes  the  great  enemy 
was  not  the  imperial  might  of  the  Caesars,  but  the 
power  and  mischief  of  sin.  In  regard  to  this  Jesus 
was  under  no  illusions,  for  from  the  very  outset  of  His 


loo  LIFE    OF    CHRIST 

ministry  He  realised  that  this  deliverance  would  not 
be  won  save  at  the  price  of  Himself,  that  the  Son  of 
man  would  need  to  give  Himself  a  ransom  for  many. 
The  story  of  the  Temptation  is  the  beginning  of  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Cross ;  it  strikes  at  the  very  outset 
that  note  which  remains  dominant  throughout  the 
ministry.  No  doubt  this  conception  gained  in  intensity 
as  Jesus  came  into  closer  contact  with  the  sins  and 
miseries  of  men.  But  it  did  not  originate  with  His 
knowledge  of  these  things.  It  was  with  Him  from  the 
first.  Though  He  only  disclosed  it  by  degrees  to  the 
disciples,  and  as  they  were  able  to  hear  it,  it  was  ever 
in  the  background  of  His  own  mind,  and  to  ignore  it 
is  to  misunderstand  alike  His  ministry  and  His  teach- 
ing. That  the  Son  of  man  must  suffer,  that  He  had  a 
baptism  to  be  baptized  with  and  a  cup  to  drink,  that 
He  came  into  the  world  to  minister  and  to  give  His 
life  a  ransom  for  many,  represented  the  necessity  laid 
upon  Him  not  merely  by  the  sin  of  man,  but  by  His 
own  nature  and  the  purpose  of  His  life  {cf.  Mark  ii.  20, 
viii.  31,  33  ;  Matt.  xvi.  21).  This  idea  of  the  Messianic 
function  reaches  its  culmination  in  the  institution  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  (Mark  xiv.  22  ;  Matt.  xxvi.  28  ;  Luke  xxii. 
19).  The  words  there  used  are  most  significant,  and  throw 
much  light  on  Jesus'  own  conception  of  His  work.  Briefly 


THE    TEACHING 


they  mean  that  He  looked  forward  to  His  own  death 
not  merely  as  the  end  of  His  career,  but  as  a  necessary 
and  most  important  part  of  His  Messianic  work,  that 
He  attributed  to  it  a  certain  saving  significance,  and 
that  He  connected  it  in  His  own  mind  in  some  way 
with  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  It  is  on  the  fact  that 
these  ideas  are  unmistakably  present  in  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  that  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  Church  regarding 
salvation,  atonement,  and  the  like  has  been  built.  But 
for  our  immediate  purpose  the  important  point  is  that 
to  the  mind  of  Jesus  Himself  these  ideas  were  con- 
tinually present.  When  criticism  has  done  its  worst 
with  them  there  still  remains  this  wonderful  concep- 
tion of  Jesus  as  a  Saviour  of  men,  and  one  willing  to 
give  Himself  to  the  uttermost  for  their  salvation.  This 
may  not  be  Messianic  in  the  usually  accepted  sense  of 
the  term,  but  it  was  chief  among  the  functions  of  the 
Messiah  as  Jesus  conceived  them. 

3.  Another  and  very  important  element  in  the 
Messianic  teaching  of  Jesus  is  its  connection  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  last  things.  It  is  a  mistake,  however, 
to  try  and  frame  an  elaborate  eschatology  from  His 
words.  He  spoke  in  poetry  and  figure  and  adopted  ideas 
current  in  His  time.  It  is  a  grave  error  to  turn  His  poetry 
into   prose.     Though  the  progress  of  the   kingdom  of 


I02  LIFE    OF    CHRIST 

heaven  was  necessarily  to  be  slow,  it  would  one  day 
reach  a  final  consummation.  This  consummation  was 
ever  present  to  the  thought  of  Jesus.  He  had  no 
notion  of  evil  as  a  permanent  and  necessary  force  in  the 
universe.  Ultimately  it  was  to  be  thwarted.  The  love 
of  God  will  triumph  in  the  end,  and  His  kingdom  will 
be  finally  established,  Jesus  Christ  Himself  being  the 
appointed  instrument  in  the  work.  This  triumph  takes 
a  twofold  form  in  the  resurrection  of  individuals  and  the 
judgment  of  the  race.  It  is  inseparably  connected  in 
thought  with  a  last  day,  a  last  judgment,  and  with  the 
second  coming  of  the  Messiah  in  glory.  These  ideas 
have  been  described  as  "temporal  expressions  for  un- 
speakable and  timeless  realities."  It  is  not  always  easy 
to  distinguish  them  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  He  Him- 
self asserts  His  ignorance  of  the  times  and  seasons  when 
they  may  be  expected.  "  Of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth 
no  one,  not  even  the  angels  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son 
but  the  Father  "  (Mark  xiii.  32).  So  in  Acts  i.  7  :  "  It  is 
not  for  you  to  know  the  times  and  seasons  which  the 
Father  hath  set  within  His  own  authority."  In  apparent 
contradiction  with  this  are  a  number  of  sayings  which 
prophesy  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  within  the  lifetime 
of  the  then  present  generation  {cf.  Mark  ix.  i,  xiii.  30; 
Matt,  xxv.,  xxxi.  32,  and  xxvi.  64).     These  and  other 


T  H  E    T  E  A  C  H  I  N  G  103 

similar  passages,  however,  may  very  well  be  regarded  as 
references  to  the  death  of  Jesus  Himself,  an  apparent 
defeat,  but  a  real  victory  of  the  power  and  love  of  God. 
Such  references  as  these  are  spiritualised  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  {cf.  John  xiv.  18,  28,  and  xii.  31),  where  even  the 
judgment  of  the  Son  of  man  is  regarded  as  a  present 
spiritual  judgment  {cf.  "  Now  is  the  judgment  of  this 
world  ").  The  death  of  Jesus  is  regarded  as  one  stage  in 
the  eschatological  process;  and  the  imminent  fall  of 
Jerusalem  is  looked  upon  as  another  {cf.  Matt.  xxiv.  and 
Mark  xiii.).  In  the  minds  of  the  Evangelists  there  is 
unquestionably  some  confusion  between  these  various 
stages  and  events,  and  we  have  not  the  data  to  enable 
us  satisfactorily  to  disentangle  it.  The  final  scene  in 
the  process  is  one  of  judgment,  and  the  remarkable 
thing  about  this  is  that  Jesus  identifies  it  with  His  own 
coming  again  in  glory,  and  teaches  that  it  is  in  Him  that 
men  will  be  judged.  "  Inasmuch  as  ye  have  done  it  or 
done  it  not  unto  one  of  the  least  of  these,  ye  have  done 
it  or  done  it  not  unto  me." 

Many  vexed  questions  arise  here,  but  it  is  only  pos- 
sible to  suggest  that  there  are  certain  indications  which 
seem  to  point  to  the  possibility  of  a  period  of  probation 
after  death.  The  story  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus 
is  a  case  in  point,   and  may  be  compared  with   such 


I04  LIFEOFCHRIST 

phrases  as  "  Entering  into  life  maimed,"  and  "  the  sin 
which  will  not  be  forgiven  either  in  this  life  or  in  that 
which  is  to  come."  This,  however,  is  not  allowed  to 
detract  from  the  seriousness  of  the  issues  at  stake. 
The  life  that  a  man  now  lives  determines  his  future, 
and  is  therefore  weighted  with  infinite  significance.  In 
the  final  judgment  that  awaits  all  men  Jesus  Christ  is 
both  the  judge  and  the  law  or  standard  by  which  men 
are  judged.  The  end  of  the  judgment  is  the  final 
establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  in  righteousness 
and  peace. 

Such  is  the  picture  of  His  person  and  work  which 
Jesus  suffered  to  grow  before  the  minds  of  His  first 
followers.  At  best  it  is  but  an  outline,  often  blurred,  and 
always  needing  details  to  be  filled  in.  It  is  impossible 
now  always  to  distinguish  between  the  words  of  Jesus 
Himself  and  the  reflections  of  His  reporters.  Nor  can 
we  be  sure  that  they  rightly  express  what  they  heard  from 
Him.  His  teaching  was  of  set  purpose  cast  in  the 
mould  of  ideas  and  phrases  which  were  familiar  to  them, 
and  we  cannot  now  always  distinguish  between  what  is 
substance  and  what  is  merely  form.  Still  less  can  we 
conclude  how  far  in  the  mind  of  Jesus  the  peculiar 
Messianic  form  which  His  teaching  concerning  Himself 
assumed  was  meant  to  be  permanent.     In  spite  of  all 


THE    TEACHING  105 

these  uncertainties,  however,  the  main  facts  of  the 
position  stand  out  with  sufficient  clearness.  The  esti- 
mate which  the  early  Church  formed  of  Jesus,  and  the 
language  used  regarding  Him  in  the  canonical  epistles, 
had  their  origin  and  justification  in  the  facts  of  His 
earthly  career  and  in  the  impression  which  these  facts 
had  left  on  the  minds  of  the  first  disciples.  All  the 
records  go  to  show  that  the  main  feature  about  the 
earthly  appearance  and  teaching  of  Jesus  was  a  note  of 
authority  or  power.  The  claims  He  made  were,  to  the 
men  who  knew  Him,  entirely  consonant  with  His  actions 
and  with  His  general  attitude.  Their  chief  surprise  was 
in  the  fact  that  He  did  not  follow  up  these  claims  in  the 
way  which  they  had  always  been  taught  to  expect.  If 
He  had  marshalled  legions  of  angels  and  called  down 
fire  from  heaven,  there  would  have  been  nothing  in  the 
action  to  astonish  them.  It  was  because  He  did  not 
do  these  things  that  His  Messiahship  seemed  so  strange 
a  thing.  Another  factor  in  the  situation  is  that  Jesus 
Himself,  though  unmistakably  conscious  of  His  power, 
was  so  entirely  reserved  in  the  use  of  it.  His  vast  claim 
was  put  forth  in  a  manner  so  humble,  and  His  power 
was  exercised  so  sparingly,  that  it  is  no  wonder  that  men 
should  mistake  both  His  spirit  and  His  actions.  This 
is  not  after  the  manner  of  men,  and  it  should  really  be 


io6  LIFEOFCHRIST 

counted  more  marvellous  in  our  eyes  than  some  of  those 
obvious  marvels  at  which  we  are  inclined  to  stumble. 
There  can  be  no  doubt,  then,  that  Jesus  suffered  men  to 
think  of  Him  as  one  who  had  come  into  the  world  to 
fulfil  the  Divine  plan  concerning  men  and  their  salvation, 
to  mediate  to  them  the  will  of  God,  and  to  open  to  them 
the  way  to  God.  There  can  be  no  doubt  also  that  He 
saw,  and  would  have  them  see,  in  Himself  one  who 
stood  in  a  peculiar  relationship  to  God,  and  who  had  a 
right  to  speak  with  authority  in  the  name  of  God. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE   ACTIVE   MINISTRY 

We  have  now  to  take  up  again  the  threads  of  the  story 
of  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  The  period  under  survey 
covers  the  latter  part  of  the  year  a.d.  27  up  to  the  Pass- 
over in  the  beginning  of  a.d.  28,  and  is  marked  by 
a  more  definite  and  detailed  preaching  of  the  kingdom 
and  by  a  number  of  miracles,  which  serve  not  only,  as 
they  have  been  called,  as  "  the  great  bell  before  the 
sermon,"  but  are  themselves  a  very  real  part  of  the 
teaching.  It  is  in  this  period,  too,  that  Jesus  begins  to 
differentiate  His  own  teaching  on  the  kingdom  from 
that  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  that  in  so  doing  He  first 
arouses  the  hostility  of  the  authorised  religious  teachers 
of  His  day.  It  must  never  be  forgotten  that  at  first  the 
ministry  of  Jesus  in  Galilee  met  with  a  great,  if  some- 
what superficial,  popular  success.  Even  the  common 
people  saw  in  Him  a  teacher  very  different  from  the 
scribes  and  doctors  of  the  law  whom  they  were  accus- 
tomed to  hear.     These  were  mere  echoes  of  the  past, 


io8  LIFEOFCHRIST 

exponents  and  interpreters  of  a  law  whose  precepts  they 
had  eviscerated  of  all  spiritual  content,  and  of  which 
they  had  only  the  dry  bones  left  to  offer  to  hungry 
men.  In  sharp  contrast  with  these,  Jesus  spake  on  His 
own  authority  and  with  first-hand  knowledge.  He  ap- 
pealed not  to  tradition,  but  to  the  religious  instinct  and 
common  sense  of  His  hearers.  "Ye  have  heard  how  it 
hath  been  said  unto  you  by  them  of  old  time — but  I  say 
unto  you,"  was  a  frequent  formula  on  His  lips.  There- 
fore the  people  heard  Him  gladly,  and  when  they  saw 
such  teaching  supported  by  the  evidence  of  wonderful 
works  of  healing,  whose  reality  not  even  the  enemies 
of  Jesus  could  gainsay,  it  is  no  wonder  that  they 
crowded  round  the  new  Teacher  and  willingly  regarded 
Him  as  one  sent  from  God  {cf.  Mark  ii.  2,  iii.  7-10 ; 
Luke  vii.  16). 

But  Jesus  Himself  knew  what  was  in  the  hearts  of 
men,  and  understood  from  the  first  that  this  popularity 
could  not  last.  His  own  idea  of  His  mission  in  the 
world,  and  of  the  kingdom  which  He  had  come  to 
proclaim,  was,  as  we  have  seen,  very  different  from  the 
Messianic  conceptions  of  His  day.  And  as  He  began  to 
make  this  known  misunderstandings  inevitably  arose. 
The  authority  with  which  Jesus  spoke  was  in  marked 
contrast  to  the  humility  and  reticence  of  Mis  demeanour 
in  other  respects.     Even  when  the  people  were  willing 


THE    ACTIVE    MINISTRY         109 

to  acclaim  Him  as  a  king,  or  at  least  as  a  great  prophet 
risen  up  among  them,  He  would  do  nothing  to  en- 
courage them.  Whenever  the  enthusiasm  of  the  crowd 
reached  its  height,  He  withdrew  Himself  and  suffered  it 
to  die  down  again.  More  than  once  He  charged  those 
on  whom  He  had  wrought  some  work  of  healing  to  go 
quietly  to  their  homes  and  not  make  the  fact  known, 
and  when  they  would  have  made  open  confession  of 
Him,  "  He  suffered  not  the  demons  to  speak,  because 
they  knew  Him  "  (Mark  i.  34,  iii.  12).  This  period  of  the 
ministry  was,  thus,  eminently  the  time  of  seed-sowing. 
Jesus'  method  was  deliberately  that  of  one  who  would 
not  strive  nor  cry  aloud.  He  refused  to  advertise 
Himself,  and  shrank  from  nothing  so  much  as  from 
making  a  sensation.  His  aim  was  gradually  to  inform 
and  awaken  a  few  (those  that  had  ears  to  hear),  and 
through  them  permeate  others  with  the  truth  He  had  to 
reveal.  The  good  seed  of  the  kingdom  was  to  be  sown 
quietly,  and  even  secretly,  and  left  to  germinate.  A 
moral  revolution  was  in  progress,  but  the  time  of  its 
manifestation  was  not  yet. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  was  inevitable  that 
Jesus  should  come  into  conflict  with  the  regular 
religious  teachers  of  His  time.  Even  in  Galilee,  and 
still  more  in  Jerusalem,  these  were  all-powerful,  and 
enjoyed   an    entire    monopoly   of    the    popular    favour. 


no  LIFE    OF    CHRIST 

In  every  village  and  town  in  Palestine  there  was  the 
local  synagogue,  the  centre  of  its  religious  life,  and 
attached  to  every  synagogue  were  scribes  and  elders. 
These  local  teachers  are  to  be  distinguished  from  the 
"scribes  sent  down  from  Jerusalem,"  who  were  emis- 
saries of  the  temple  hierarchy,  and  from  the  Hero- 
dians,  a  dynastic  party  of  the  Herods,  who  afterwards 
combined  with  them,  for  reasons  of  their  own,  in  op- 
position to  Jesus.  The  familiar  phrase  "  scribes  and 
Pharisees  "  is  a  generic  term  comprising  those  teachers 
of  the  people  who  belonged  to  the  stricter  and  more 
patriotic  section  of  the  religious  community.  The 
Pharisees,  or  Perushim,  were  the  descendants  of  the 
men  of  the  Maccabean  age  who  had  earned  for  them- 
selves by  their  devotion  the  title  Kasidhim  or  Pious. 
They  represented  the  most  rigid  and  exclusive  type  of 
Judaism,  and  by  their  devotion  to  the  study  and 
interpretation  of  the  Law,  had  won  the  right  to  "sit 
in  Moses'  seat."  The  use  they  made  of  their  position 
and  privileges  proved  disastrous  to  the  spiritual  life 
of  the  people.  In  their  hands  the  Law  became  a 
mere  instrument  of  tyranny  over  the  consciences  of 
the  faithful.  To  use  the  familiar  phrase,  they  made 
a  hedge  round  the  Law,  i.e.  they  so  elaborated  its 
precepts  that  a  man  would  have  to  break  quite  a 
number    of    minor   ordinances    before   he   came   near 


THE    ACTIVE    MINISTRY         iii 

transgressing  the  law  itself.^  For  example,  they 
enumerated  thirty-nine  works  which  were  forbidden 
on  the  Sabbath,  but  in  the  case  of  each  of  them  entered 
into  endless  discussions  as  to  what  exactly  constituted 
the  breach.  Reaping  and  threshing  were  forbidden, 
but  as  to  whether  plucking  a  few  ears  and  rubbing  them 
in  the  hands  were  lawful  or  not  was  a  matter  of  grave 
dispute.  Thus  the  righteousness  which  they  inculcated 
was  of  the  purely  legalistic  type,  and  justified  the  word 
of  Jesus  to  His  followers,  "  Except  your  righteousness 
exceed  the  righteousness  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees 
ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
It  was  on  this  ground  that  the  natural  opposition  of 
Jesus  to  these  men  made  itself  felt.  To  them  religion 
was  an  affair  of  the  forcing-house,  while  He  lived  in 
the  freedom  of  God's  open  heaven.  They  made  men 
slaves  of  God  and  of  His  will ;  He  came  to  give  them 
the  liberty  of  sons.  They  sought  to  force  piety  into 
rigid  and  uniform  moulds ;  He  would  have  it  grow 
naturally  and  spontaneously.  No  doubt  it  is  true  that 
it  was  the  Jerusalem  priests  and  the  Sadducees  who 
killed  Jesus  in  the  end,  but  throughout  His  ministry 
the  Pharisees  were  His  real  opponents.  To  Him  they 
were  hypocrites,  actors  who  wore  a  semblance  of  that 

1  On  this  whole  subject,  cf.  Schiirer,  "  The  Jewish  People  in  the 
Time  of  Jesus  Christ,"  vol.  ii.  sec.  2,  p.  96. 


LIFE    OF    CHRIST 


righteousness  which  they  did  not  really  possess.  He 
rebuked  them  in  terms  of  unmeasured  mdignation  and 
scorn,  and  found  in  their  errors  and  follies  a  con- 
venient background  against  which  to  paint  in  bright 
free  colours  His  picture  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

It  is  to  this  earlier  part  of  the  active  ministry  of  Jesus 
that  the  preaching  of  the  kingdom  mainly  belongs. 
This  preaching  was  partly  parabolic  and  partly  didactic. 
Of  this  latter  St.  Matthew's  gospel  gives  a  striking  example 
in  the  collection  of  discourses  known  to  us  by  the  name 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  This  is  now  generally 
regarded  not  as  a  set  speech  spoken  on  a  single  occasion, 
but  as  a  summary  of  the  main  points  of  the  teaching. 
Nowhere  else  in  the  Gospels  is  the  character  required 
of  members  of  the  kingdom  more  vividly  portrayed. 
It  is  altogether  a  mistake  to  regard  this  *'  Sermon  "  as 
a  mere  exposition  of  Christian  ethic,  and  as  in  some 
way  alien  from  the  "  Gospel."  On  the  contrary,  the 
religious  aim  and  motive  is  dominant  throughout.  The 
Sermon  also  contains  an  implicit  theology,  and  witnesses 
unmistakably  to  the  authority  of  the  teacher  and  to 
the  place  which  He  occupies  in  His  own  doctrine. 

The  "  mighty  works  "  of  this  period  illustrate  mainly 
the  attitude  of  compassion  which  Jesus  took  up  towards 
sinful  and  suffering  humanity.  The  healing  of  the  palsied 
man,  with  its  remarkable  testimony,  "The  Son  of  man 


THE    ACTIVE    MINISTRY         113 

hath  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins,"  the  casting  out  of 
devils,  the  opening  of  bHnd  eyes,  the  feeding  of  the 
hungry  multitudes,  and  the  mission  of  the  twelve,  all 
stand  out  not  as  mere  signs  and  wonders,  but  as  acts  of 
pure  compassion  wrung  from  the  very  heart  of  Jesus. 
It  cannot  be  insisted  on  too  strongly  that,  even  as  seen 
through  the  credulous  eyes  of  those  who  report  them, 
these  miracles  represent  a  kind  of  minimum  of  power, 
and  appear  an  altogether  natural  accompaniment  of  the 
claims  which  Jesus  made.  We  would  also  note  once 
more  that  they  form  in  themselves  no  inconsiderable  part 
of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  concerning  Himself.  This  is 
probably  more  easily  comprehended  by  us  than  it  could 
be  by  His  contemporaries,  but  there  is  no  question  that 
these  miracles  do  more  than  merely  witness  to  extra- 
ordinary powers ;  they  help  us  to  see  what  Jesus  meant 
when  He  called  Himself  the  "  Son  of  man,"  and  they 
prepare  the  way  for  the  further  and  final  manifestation 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

The  feast  of  the  Passover  in  the  early  part  of  the  year 
A.D.  28  marks  the  beginning  of  another  stage  in  the 
ministry  of  Jesus.  From  that  time  until  the  Feast  of 
Tabernacles  in  the  October  of  the  same  year  He  was 
occupied  in  extending  and  consolidating  His  work  in 
Galilee.  The  scene  of  this  work  was  mainly  the  shores 
of  the  lake  of  Galilee,  but  from  there  Jesus  journeyed 

H 


114  LIFE    OF    CHRIST 

to  the  borders  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  thence  eastward  through 
the  district  of  Csesarea  Philippi,  returning  finally  to 
Capernaum  round  the  east  of  the  lake  through  Decapolis. 
It  has  been  noted  that  this  journey  led  for  the  most 
part  through  the  dominion  of  Philip,  the  brother  of 
Herod  Antipas,  and  there  is  good  reason  for  the  belief 
that  it  was  taken  in  order  to  avoid  the  growing  hostility 
of  Herod  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  importunities  of  the 
people  of  central  Galilee  on  the  other.  It  is  from  this 
time  that  we  must  date  the  alliance  of  the  Pharisees 
and  Herodians  against  Jesus.  Enthusiasm  in  Galilee 
had  reached  a  climax  in  consequence  of  the  miracle  of 
the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand.  This  took  place  when 
the  Passover  was  at  hand  and  when  there  were  present 
in  Galilee  multitudes  of  the  devout  on  th-eir  way  to 
Jerusalem.  These  men  readily  saw  in  the  miracle  the 
beginning  of  the  Messianic  events  to  which  they  had 
long  looked  forward.^  Jesus,  however,  was  not  prepared 
to  second  their  expectations  or  to  meet  them  half-way. 

^  It  is  now  generally  agreed  that  the  two  accounts  of  the  feeding 
of  the  multitude  in  Mark  vi.  30-46,  and  Mark  viii.  1-9,  refer  to  one 
and  the  same  event.  In  the  second  account  the  disciples  are 
made  to  speak  as  though  the  event  were  something  new  in  their 
experience,  and  the  double  account  is  no  doubt  due  to  the  fact  that 
there  were  two  independent  traditions  on  the  subject.     As  Sanday 


THE    ACTIVE    MINISTRY         115 

He  will  take  no  steps  to  become  their  leader,  and  con- 
tinues to  do  His  work  quietly  and  "  without  observation." 
From  this  time,  therefore,  His  popularity  with  the  crowd 
began  to  wane  and  many  ceased  from  following  Him.  It 
was  not  so,  however,  with  the  more  intimate  circle  of 
the  disciples.  They  had  kept  all  these  things  in  their 
hearts,  and  had  evidently  done  so  to  some  purpose. 
They  had  had  more  opportunity  than  the  crowd  of 
entering  into  the  mind  of  their  Master,  and  they  were 
able  to  put  together  His  words  and  His  works  in  such 
fashion  as  to  realise  what  it  all  meant.  When,  there- 
fore, at  Caesarea  Philippi,  Jesus  asked  the  direct  ques- 
tion, "Whom  say  ye  that  I  am?"  Peter  was  ready  to 
act  as  the  mouthpiece  of  the  others  with  the  words, 
"Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,"  Even 
then  Jesus  charges  the  disciples  to  tell  no  man  what 
they  have  learned,  but  He  recognises  at  the  same  time 
that  the  revelation  has  come  to  them  from  above,  and 
that  the  confession  resulting  from  it  is  crucial.  To  this 
confession  Jesus  adds  His  blessing  and  the  promise  that 
it  shall  be  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  Church.  Of 
the  meaning  of  this  promise  many  and  various  interpreta- 

points  out,  this  would  carry  us  back  to  a  time  earlier  than  the  oldest 
stratum  of  Gospel  narrative,  if  we  have  to  allow  time  for  the  two 
versions  to  arise  out  of  their  common  original. 


ii6  LIFE    OF    CHRIST 


tions  have  been  given.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  here  that 
the  rock  on  which  the  Church  is  to  be  built  is  not  Peter 
the  man,  but  Peter  the  confessor  of  the  Christ.  Wher- 
ever there  is  a  belief  in  and  confession  of  Jesus  as  the 
Christ,  there  is  the  element  out  of  which  the  Christian 
Church  is  formed.  Peter's  confession,  being  the  first, 
is  regarded  as  the  first  stone  laid  in  the  edifice  of  the 
Church.  The  importance  attached  to  this  by  Jesus 
is  the  more  remarkable,  because  there  can  be  but 
little  doubt  that  Peter  had  no  very  clear  or  true  idea 
of  what  the  Christhood  of  Jesus  really  meant.  It  was 
his  attitude  of  belief  rather  than  the  content  of  his 
belief  on  which  Jesus  laid  stress,  and  the  point  is 
important  for  the  whole  subsequent  history  of  the 
Church  on  earth. 

How  little  Peter  really  understood  of  the  mind  of  Jesus 
is  seen  from  his  conduct  when  Jesus  told  the  disciples 
that  "  He  must  suffer  many  things,  and  be  rejected  of 
the  elders  and  chief  priests  and  scribes,  and  be  killed,  and 
the  third  day  be  raised  up."  Peter  then  took  Him  and 
began  to  rebuke  Him,  and  was  himself  rebuked  with 
the  terrible  words,  "  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan  :  thou 
art  a  stumbling-block  unto  me :  for  thou  mindest  not 
the  things  of  God,  but  the  things  of  men."  Then 
followed  the  statement  that  each  disciple  must  take  up 


THE    ACTIVE    MINISTRY  117 

his  own  cross  and  follow  Jesus  if  he  would  really  save 
his  life.  The  whole  incident  and  the  teaching  based 
upon  it  are  very  significant  both  as  regards  the  historical 
interpretation  of  the  life  of  Jesus  and  the  meaning  to  be 
attached  to  His  work  in  these  days.  It  shows  us  some- 
thing of  His  own  method  of  self-revelation,  and  of  the 
grave  difficulties  which  He  had  to  face,  and  it  helps  us 
also  to  realise  that  the  true  understanding  of  Jesus  can 
only  come,  not  by  the  study  of  His  words,  but  by  the 
reproduction  of  His  experience.  What  He  called  the 
cross  is  one  thing  to  the  man  who  looks  at  it  more  or 
less  critically  from  the  outside,  and  quite  another  thing 
to  the  man  who  has  learnt  to  carry  his  own  cross  in  the 
spirit  of  the  Master.  It  is  never  an  easy  thing  for  a 
man  to  see  as  God  sees,  or  to  savour  of  the  things  of 
God.  It  comes  only  by  the  hard  discipline  of  expe- 
rience. This  experience  the  disciples  at  present  were 
scarcely  prepared  to  face. 

The  process  of  preparation  must  have  been  greatly 
hastened  by  another  event  which  followed  closely  upon 
the  confession  of  Peter  and  is  known  to  us  as  the  Trans- 
figuration. This  familiar  story  marks  yet  a  further  stage 
in  the  self- manifestation  of  Jesus.  It  is  closely  paralleled 
by  the  accounts  of  the  Baptism  and  the  Temptation, 
and,  like  these,  purports  to  give  a  certain  Divine  attesta- 


ii8  LIFE    OF    CHRIST 

tion  to  the  work  and  claims  of  Jesus.  There  is  a 
dramatic  propriety  in  its  occurrence  just  at  this  time,  in 
view  of  the  impending  crisis  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus. 
The  historicity  of  the  story  has,  of  course,  been  gravely 
questioned,  and  it  is  often  regarded  as  a  merely  sym- 
bolical or  parabolic  confirmation  of  the  Divine  claim  of 
Jesus.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  certain  considera- 
tions which  make  against  any  such  view,  and  suggest 
that,  however  difficult  it  may  be  for  us  to  understand 
the  incident,  it  is  not  without  historical  background. 
These  are  summed  up  by  Sanday  as  follows :  "(i)  The 
significance  of  the  appearance  of  Moses  and  Elijah  at 
a  time  when  that  significance  can  have  been  but  very 
imperfectly  apprehended  by  the  disciples,  and  when 
there  was  absolutely  nothing  to  suggest  such  an  idea  to 
them ;  and  (2)  the  Transfiguration  comes  within  the  cycle 
of  events  in  regard  to  which  a  strict  silence  was  to  be 
preserved.  This  striking  and  peculiar  stamp  of  genuine- 
ness was  not  wanting  to  it.  We  may  note  also  (3)  the 
random  speech  of  St.  Peter  (Mark  ix.  5)  as  a  little  graphic 
and  authentic  touch  which  had  not  been  forgotten."  On 
the  whole,  the  most  obvious  theory  is  here,  as  often,  pro- 
bably the  best,  viz.  that  the  event  represents  a  vision 
seen  by  one  or  more  of  the  disciples  and  regarded  by 
them  and  accepted  by  Jesus  as  a  Divine  confirmation 


THE    ACTIVE    MINISTRY  119 

of  His  mission.  It  may  at  least  have  served  to  bring 
home  to  them  the  imminence  of  that  catastrophe  in 
which  they  had  hitherto  refused  to  believe. 

We  have  now  reached  the  culminating  point  in  the 
ministry  of  Jesus.  His  work  in  Galilee  was  practically 
finished.  Henceforth  the  centre  of  interest  is  trans- 
ferred to  Jerusalem  and  the  neighbourhood.  So  far  he 
has  borne  His  testimony  among  the  people  who  sat  in 
darkness,  and  the  general  result  has  been  that  they  have 
shown  themselves  to  love  darkness  rather  than  light. 
Jesus  has  contented  Himself  with  sowing  a  crop  of  seed 
that,  so  far,  has  only  fallen  into  the  ground  and  apparently 
died.  The  harvest  is  not  yet.  His  mission  has  been 
confined  to  simple,  lowly,  and  needy  folk,  who,  even  if 
they  had  thoroughly  understood  what  He  was  doing, 
would  have  had  no  power  properly  to  make  it  known. 
His  association  with  them  was  deliberate,  but  even  in 
His  own  day  was  regarded  as  a  grave  drawback,  and  as 
at  least  an  error  in  tactics.  "  He  eateth  and  drinketh 
with  publicans  and  sinners "  was  charged  against  Him 
as  a  grave  reproach  by  His  contemporaries.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  it  was  an  exact  description  of  His  programme, 
and  from  His  own  point  of  view  a  justification  of  it. 
The  Galilean  ministry  of  Jesus  sets  the  note  of  His 
whole  work  among  mankind.     The  healing  of  the  sick, 


T20  LIFE    OF    CHRIST 

the  opening  of  the  eyes  of  the  blind,  and  the  preaching 
of  the  Gospel  to  the  poor — these  were  the  objects  of 
His  coming  into  the  world.  The  way  in  which  He 
carried  them  out,  rather  than  the  effect  which  He 
produced  by  them,  is  the  best  possible  witness  to  His 
glory. 


CHAPTER    IX 

THE   ACTIVE    MINISTRY    {contmued) 

As  has  already  been  suggested,  the  period  from  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles  in  a.d.  28  to  the  Passover  of 
A.D.  29  marks  a  new  development  in  the  ministry  of 
Jesus.  It  is  Jerusalem  and  Judea  rather  than  Galilee 
which  form  the  scene  of  operations.  The  religious 
conditions  are  those  of  the  Temple  rather  than  of 
the  synagogue.  And  the  opponents  of  Jesus  are 
priests  and  Sadducees  rather  than  Pharisees  and 
scribes.  The  records  of  this  period  in  Matthew  and 
Mark  are  very  scanty.  St.  Luke  is  much  more  full, 
and  many  of  the  incidents  in  the  long  passage,  ix.  51- 
xix.  28,  though  by  no  means  in  chronological  order, 
may  be  placed  here.  But  even  this  narrative  needs 
to  be  filled  in  from  the  Fourth  Gospel,  which  is  a 
source  of  real  historical  value  for  the  Judean  ministry. 
Apart  from  the  vividness  and  verisimilitude  of  his 
narrative,  the  author  of  this  Gospel  supplies  a  record 
of  events  which  are  really  needed  in  order  to  account 


122  LIFEOFCHRIST 

for  the  crisis  which  followed.  In  the  teaching  of  this 
period  it  is  possible  to  discover  a  transference  of 
emphasis  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven  in  general 
to  the  Person  who  is  regarded  as  its  King.  The  Son 
in  His  unique  relation  to  the  Father  and  to  humanity 
stands  out  now  with  increasing  clearness,  and  it  is 
this  personal  claim  which  He  makes  which  draws 
upon  Himself  the  growing  hostility  of  the  authorities. 
It  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  visualise  the  conditions 
of  this  process.  The  sources  are  fragmentary  and 
disconnected,  and  notes  of  time  are  almost  entirely 
wanting.  In  spite  of  this,  certain  features  stand  out 
from  the  confusion  and  are  noteworthy.  Among  these 
the  most  important  is  the  greater  prominence  which  His 
approaching  death  assumes  in  the  mind  and  con- 
versation of  Jesus.  For  a  full  discussion  of  this  sub- 
ject the  reader  may  be  referred  to  a  series  of  articles 
by  Dr.  Fairbairn  which  appeared  in  the  Expositor 
for  1896.  It  was  not  only  that  the  signs  of  the 
times  were  ominous,  and  that  everything  pointed  to 
an  outburst  of  hostility  on  the  part  of  those  who 
practically  held  the  fate  of  Jesus  in  their  hands.  This 
much  was  patent  to  any  outside  observer.  But  there 
were  certain  deeper  considerations  which  appealed  to 
Jesus  Himself.  He  had  deliberately  ''set  His  face 
to   go   to    Jerusalem,"   and    He   knew   what    He   was 


THE    ACTIVE    MINISTRY         123 

doing.  Jerusalem  had  a  way  of  stoning  her  prophets, 
and  He  was  to  be  no  exception  to  the  rule.  Already 
He  had  in  His  own  mind  identified  the  Messiah  with 
the  suffering  Servant  of  Jehovah  in  the  familiar  pro- 
phecy, and  He  was  prepared  to  sustain  the  role 
throughout.  He  had  a  large  conception  of  His  duty 
as  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  and  He  was  both  able 
and  willing  to  proceed  to  the  uttermost  lengths  to 
fulfil  His  mission.  As  the  salvation  He  wrought  was 
a  greater  thing  than  any  earthly  redemption,  so  the 
means  by  which  it  was  to  be  attained  were  greater 
than  those  common  among  men.  Meekness,  endur- 
ance, suffering,  submission,  ministry — these  were  the 
means  He  was  prepared  to  use,  and  He  understood 
to  the  full  what  they  involved.  There  is  something 
wistful  and  pathetic  in  His  endeavours  to  make  this 
known  to  the  dull  perceptions  of  His  disciples  and 
their  contemporaries.  It  is  a  pity  that  we  only  see 
these  through  their  eyes,  for  we  may  be  sure  that 
the  vision  is  a  distorted  one.  Even  so  much,  how- 
ever, as  they  have  left  on  record  is  enough  to  enable 
us  to  realise  how  deeply  and  continuously  the  mind 
of  Jesus  was  possessed  with  the  idea  that  it  was  only 
by  the  sacrifice  of  Himself  that  He  could  accomplish 
the  work  that  had  been  given  Him  to  do. 

Thus  it  is  that  in  the  discourses  given  in  the  Fourth 


124  LIFEOFCHRIST 

Gospel  Jesus  represents  Himself  as  the  Life  and  the 
Light  of  men,  as  the  living  bread  and  the  water  of 
life,  as  the  Good  Shepherd  who  gives  His  life  for 
the  sheep,  and  as  the  resurrection  and  the  life.  Of 
the  same  order  is  the  teaching  given  in  the  Synoptists, 
when  He  called  little  children  unto  Himself,  and 
bade  the  rich  young  man  sell  all  that  he  had  and 
follow  Him,  and  asked  the  disciples  whether  they 
were  able  to  drink  of  His  cup  and  be  baptized  with 
His  baptism,  and  told  them  that  "the  Son  of  man 
came,  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and 
to  give  His  life  a  ransom  for  many."  Li  spite  of 
a  certain  very  perceptible  difference  in  atmosphere, 
these  sayings  all  hang  together,  and  suggest  a  picture 
which  is  homogeneous.  The  impression  which  Jesus 
thus  produced  on  very  varied  minds  is  almost  more 
useful  to  us  than  more  detailed  and  definite  teaching 
would  be. 

We  now  come  to  the  Passover  of  the  year  a.d.  29, 
and  with  it  to  the  closing  scenes  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus. 
The  importance  of  these,  and  the  effect  they  had  on  the 
minds  of  contemporary  observers,  may  be  gathered  from 
the  full  and  clear  account  of  them  which  our  four  Gospels 
have  preserved.  It  is  as  though  half  unconsciously  the 
writers  realised  that  the  crisis  was  one  of  immeasurable 
significance.  The  tragedy  opens  with  the  triumphal  entry 


THE    ACTIVE    MINISTRY         125 

into  Jerusalem.  There  is  no  reason  to  question  the 
account  given  by  the  Evangelists,  which  indicates  that  this 
was  arranged  by  Jesus  of  set  purpose.  It  is  a  deliberate 
admission  of  His  belief  that  He  has  come  to  fulfil 
prophecy,  and  a  deliberate  acceptance  of  the  yoke  that 
this  involved.  It  served  to  open  a  good  many  eyes  once 
and  for  all,  and  awakened  in  the  fickle  multitude  an 
enthusiasm  vv^hich,  shallow  though  it  was,  threatened  to 
have  inconvenient  consequences.  But  the  time  of  retire- 
ment was  now  passed,  and  henceforth  Jesus  stands  out 
to  the  view  of  the  world  as  definitely  making  the  claim 
to  be  the  leader  and  Saviour  of  men.  The  effect  of  this 
is  at  once  apparent  in  the  increased  hostility  of  the 
authorities.  The  Pharisees  had  bated  nothing  of  their 
enmity,  and  to  their  ranks  must  now  be  added  the  priests 
and  Sadducees.  It  is  now  that  the  Sanhedrin  begins  to 
take  part  in  the  opposition  to  Jesus.  Though  there  were 
Pharisees  among  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin,  its 
policy  was  mainly  directed  by  the  Sadducees,  to  whom 
most  of  the  chief  priests  belonged.  The  Sadducees  re- 
jected the  traditions  of  the  elders.  They  had  not  the 
keen  interest  in  the  Law  which  the  Pharisees  showed. 
They  were  politicians  first  and  last,  and  they  dreaded 
and  sought  to  avoid  anything  which  would  justify  the 
Romans  in  taking  out  of  their  hands  the  delegated  powers 
w^ith   which  they  had  been  entrusted.     Their  name  is 


126  LIFEOF 'CHRIST 

probably  derived  from  Zadok,  the  typical  high-priest 
and  head  of  the  priestly  family.  Historically  they  stood 
for  the  assertion  of  the  rights  of  the  priesthood,  and 
were  the  social  aristocracy  of  their  nation.  Conservative 
and  opportunist  in  spirit,  their  antagonism  to  Jesus  was 
a  foregone  conclusion,  and  they  had  the  power  to  turn 
their  hate  into  deeds.  No  time  was  lost  in  bringing  this 
antagonism  to  a  head.  The  cleansing  of  the  Temple  by 
Jesus  (Matt.  xxi.  12),  which  the  Synoptic  writers  place 
at  this  period,  and  which  may  have  been  repeated,  shows 
Him  challenging  these  men  on  their  own  ground.  It  was 
not  to  be  wondered  at  that  they  came  and  asked  Him 
"  By  what  authority  doest  thou  these  things,  and  who 
gave  thee  this  authority  ?  "  and  they  were  not  likely  to 
be  placated  by  being  referred  to  the  baptism  of  John 
and  by  being  told  that  the  publicans  and  harlots  who 
believed  in  him  would  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
before  these  righteous  men  who  had  no  eyes  for  the 
righteousness  of  John  and  his  teaching.  This  shrewd 
dealing  with  them  was  followed  up  by  the  parable  of  the 
householder  and  his  vineyard,  and  in  the  servants  of  the 
householder  who  beat  his  messengers  and  slew  his  son, 
the  opponents  of  Jesus  were  openly  invited  to  recognise 
themselves.  They  were  quick  enough  also  to  recognise 
the  tremendous  implications  of  the  parable  in  regard  to 
the  speaker,  and  they  would  have  made  away  with  Him 


THE    ACTIVE    MINISTRY         127 

there  and  then  but  that  they  feared  the  people.  These, 
who  had  accounted  John  as  a  prophet,  were  not  yet 
disposed  to  turn  against  John's  Master.  All  the  evidence 
in  the  Gospels  goes  to  show  the  increasingly  political 
character  of  the  opposition  to  Jesus  at  this  time.  The 
questions  (Matt.  xxii.  15,  and  xxii.  41)  about  the  tribute 
to  C?esar,  and  about  David  and  David's  Lord,  were 
manifest  traps,  laid  in  order  to  embroil  Jesus  with  the 
secular  power.  Though  the  time  was  not  yet,  they 
all  helped  to  serve  this  end,  and  the  time  soon  came 
when  Jesus  recognised  that  the  crisis  was  at  hand  and 
that  He  was  about  to  be  betrayed  into  the  hands  of 
sinners. 

The  agent  in  this  betrayal  was  one  of  His  own 
disciples.  We  do  not  possess  the  materials  necessary 
for  a  full  understanding  of  the  motives  which  prompted 
Judas  Iscariot  to  sell  his  Master.  That  the  man  had  the 
possibility  of  great  things  in  him  goes  without  saying,  since 
he  was  one  of  the  select  few  chosen  to  be  the  companions 
of  the  Lord.  Probably  he  was  among  those  who,  like 
Simon  the  Zealot,  cherished  the  more  carnal  expectations 
of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  and  found  it  very  hard  to  ex- 
change them  for  the  more  spiritual  idea  of  Jesus  Himself. 
There  was  a  strain  of  fanaticism  which,  when  thwarted, 
easily  became  hate.  This  is  a  more  probable  explana- 
tion of  his  action  than  the  popular  one  of  covetousness. 


128  LIFE    OF    CHRIST 

Many  of  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in  the  last  days,  with 
their  entire  repudiation  of  the  material  idea  of  the  king- 
dom, would  no  doubt  help  to  bring  the  growing  resolu- 
tion of  Judas  to  a  head. 

These  discourses  themselves  raise  one  of  the  most 
difificult  problems  of  the  Gospels.  As  the  end  ap- 
proached, Jesus  evidently  spent  much  time  in  speaking 
to  His  followers  of  the  future.  He  had  to  prepare  their 
minds  for  the  shock  of  His  coming  departure,  and  to 
convince  them  of  the  permanence  and  ultimate  triumph 
of  the  kingdom  which  He  had  come  to  found.  He  had 
also  to  bring  home  to  them  the  startling  truth  that, 
though  absent  from  them  in  the  flesh,  He  would  yet 
remain  their  very  real  and  ever-present  helper.  Much 
of  His  teaching  on  these  subjects  was  couched  in  the 
form  of  that  Jewish  apocalyptic  which  was  not  un* 
familiar  to  their  minds.  This  was  strictly  in  accordance 
with  the  whole  method  of  Jesus.  He  spoke  in  the 
language  of  His  time.  As  we  have  already  seen,  how- 
ever, the  records  show  that  His  hearers  did  not  alto- 
gether understand  Him,  and  at  least  failed  to  report 
Him  intelligibly.  It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  there- 
fore, that  an  age  like  our  own  fails  to  grasp  to  any  good 
purpose  this  part  of  the  teaching.  For  the  critical 
problems  involved,  and  for  the  various  interpretations 
of  them    which   have    been  given,    we  must  refer  our 


THE    ACTIVE    MINISTRY         129 

readers  to  the  many  special  treatises  on  the  subject. 
For  our  present  purpose  it  is  sufficient  to  distinguish 
certain  of  the  more  important  points  in  the  narrative, 
and  reaHse  where  the  main  difficulties  lie.  According 
to  Professor  Sanday's  enumeration  there  are  six  kinds 
of  prediction  attributed  to  Jesus  during  this  period. 
"There  is  (i)  the  prediction  of  His  own  death  and 
resurrection.  There  is  (2)  the  prediction  of  the  siege  and 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  With  this  in  the  great  passage 
Mark  xiii.  is  directly  connected  (3)  the  prediction  of  the 
end  of  the  world  and  the  last  judgment ;  (4)  the  dis- 
courses in  John  clearly  predict  the  coming  of  the 
Paraclete  as  the  substitute  for  Christ  Himself;  (5)  in 
another  leading  passage  (Mark  ix.  i)  a  phrase  is  used 
which  may  be  explained,  though  it  is  not  usually  ex- 
plained, of  the  remarkable  spread  of  the  Christian  Church 
from  the  Day  of  Pentecost  onwards.  Lastly  (6)  there  is 
the  explanation  which  is  frequently  given  of  the  coming 
of  the  Son  of  man  as  a  so-called  '  historical  coming,'  a 
coming  not  exhausted  by  a  single  occasion,  but  repeated 
in  the  great  events  of  history."  But  though  all  these 
various  predictions  may  be  distinguished  in  the  narra- 
tives, it  does  not  follow  that  they  were  all  clearly  dis- 
tinguished in  the  minds  of  the  narrators,  or  that  when 
they  spoke  of  them  they  were  all  necessarily  referring  to 
the  same  event.     The  one  thing  which  seems  to  have 


I30  LIFEOFCHRIST 

stood  out  clearly  in  their  minds  and  in  the  minds  of 
early  Christians  generally,  was  an  expectation  of  a 
speedy  second  coming  of  the  Lord,  an  expectation 
which  they  based  upon  His  own  words.  It  is  the  dis- 
appointment of  this  expectation  which  forms  the  real 
crux  of  the  problem  for  modern  Christians,  and  it  has 
to  be  confessed  that  no  satisfactory  solution  of  it  has 
been  reached.  Unquestionably  the  expectation  itself 
served  a  great  and  good  purpose  in  the  early  days  of 
the  Church  in  nerving  Christian  men  and  women  to 
endure  their  trials,  and  in  inducing  among  them  that 
unworldly  or  other-worldly  spirit  which  proved  so  great 
a  help  to  their  faith.  There  is  a  providential  force  at 
ivork  here  which  must  not  be  overlooked.  Apart  from 
this  we  may  conclude  either  that  the  coming  of  the 
Son  of  man  took  place  in  some  great  catastrophe  such 
as  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  or  some  great  event  like 
the  Resurrection,  or  that  it  is  to  be  identified  with  the 
coming  of  the  Paraclete,  which  occupies  so  large  a 
place  in  the  discourses  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  or  that 
it  is  still  delayed,  and  that  the  early  disciples  were  mis- 
taken in  their  view  of  it  as  being  close  at  hand.  Even 
the  vast  amount  of  study  expended  on  the  subject  does 
not  yet  justify  a  final  solution,  and  the  whole  question 
is  so  obscure  that  it  is  the  part  of  wisdom  to  refrain 
from  dogmatism. 


THE    ACTIVE    MINISTRY         131 

Among  the  closing  incidents  in  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ 
the  Lord's  Supper  must  be  given  an  important  place. 
According  to  our  sources  Jesus  ate  the  Passover  with 
His  disciples,  and  gave  to  the  meal  a  special  significance 
by  attaching  it  to  His  own  death,  and  giving  to  it  a 
certain  commemorative  function.  This  appears  much 
more  clearly  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul  and  in  the 
practice  of  the  early  Church  than  in  the  Gospels  them- 
selves, but  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  fact  that  the 
event  recorded  in  the  Gospels  supplied  the  material  for 
St.  Paul's  teaching  and  for  the  action  based  upon  it.  As 
was  to  be  expected,  the  earliest  form  of  our  texts  is  the 
least  full  and  explicit,  but  the  various  authorities  all 
agree  on  certain  main  points.  These  are  that  in  the 
course  of  this  meal  with  His  disciples,  Jesus  took  the 
bread,  and  gave  thanks,  and  broke  it,  and  said,  "  This  is 
my  Body ; "  that  He  took  the  cup,  and  (so  the  Synoptic 
and  Pauline  traditions)  spoke  of  it  as  the  cup  of  the 
New  Covenant  in  the  shedding  of  the  Messiah's  blood. 
In  the  Synoptic  writers,  again,  the  shedding  of  the  blood 
is  spoken  of  as  redemptive.  These  are  but  the  bare 
bones  of  the  narrative,  yet  they  are  significant  of  much, 
and  they  set  before  us  an  institution.  This  remains  even 
if  we  agree  with  those  critics  who  tell  us  that  the  words, 
"This  do  in  remembrance  of  me,"  are  no  part  of  the 
original  narrative.     The  whole  point   is  that  the  meal 


132  LIFEOFCHRIST 

is  associated  with  the  death  of  Jesus  as  a  sacrifice,  and 
we  have  to  ask  what  this  meant  in  His  mind,  and  how 
it  would  naturally  be  interpreted  by  His  followers.  It 
would  be  regarded  as  the  sacred  meal  following  on  the 
sacrifice,  a  meal  which  invariably  signified  an  act  of 
communion  not  only  among  the  worshippers,  but  with 
the  Deity  worshipped.  This  communion  would  readily 
suggest  itself  to  men  who  had  heard  Jesus  speak  of 
Himself  as  the  bread  and  water  of  life,  and  would  lead 
them  to  see  in  the  sacrament  a  means  of  spiritual 
assimilation  of  their  Lord.  Not  that  this  impression 
would  arise  at  the  moment.  It  is  more  in  the  nature 
of  an  after-reflection  on  the  event,  and  is  connected 
with  the  insistent  promise  of  Jesus  regarding  His  own 
presence  with  His  followers  for  all  time.  In  the  solemn 
words  which  He  used  at  this  crisis  in  His  fortunes,  and 
in  the  solemn  and  evidently  symbolic  acts  by  which  they 
were  accompanied,  we  cannot  but  see  a  fresh  effort  on 
His  part  to  disclose  to  these  men  something  of  the 
power  and  meaning  of  His  presence  among  them,  and 
to  reassure  them  against  His  departure.  In  spite  of  the 
efforts  which  have  been  made  to  minimise  it,  St.  Paul's 
evidence  is  of  real  importance  as  to  the  position  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  in  the  early  Church.  Its  value  is  not 
confined  to  the  details  of  the  ordinance,  but  is  of  the 
greatest  importance  for  estimating  the  place  which  Jesus 


THE    ACTIVE    MINISTRY         133 

had  come  to  occupy  in  the  minds  of  His  followers  at  a 
very  early  period  after  His  death.  Working  backwards 
from  this,  we  jeach  again  that  consciousness  of  Jesus 
concerning  Himself  and  His  mission  of  which  the  wisest 
of  His  followers  is  only  able  to  give  us  a  dim  and  half- 
realised  impression. 

The  eucharistic  meal  was  but  one  of  several  events 
which  show  how  Jesus  anticipated  His  death  and  pre- 
pared His  disciples  for  what  was  to  come.  The 
author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  has  gathered  together 
a  number  of  discourses  bearing  on  these  things,  which, 
though  they  have  certainly  passed  through  the  mind 
of  their  narrator,  and  taken  something  of  the  form  of 
his  thought,  show  very  clearly  the  kind  of  teaching 
which  Jesus  impressed  upon  His  followers  at  this 
time.  It  was  His  aim  to  reassure  them,  and  to  help 
them  to  realise  that  His  death  was  not  an  end  but 
a  beginning,  and  that  there  was  still  a  great  future 
for  His  kingdom  and  for  His  followers.  The  same 
appears  from  that  fine  incident,  recorded  also  by  St. 
John,  when  Jesus,  knowing  that  His  hour  was  come, 
having  loved  His  own,  loved  them  unto  the  end,  and 
"took  a  towel  and  girded  himself  and  washed  the 
disciples'  feet,"  leaving  them  an  example  that  they 
should  follow  His  steps.  This  is  the  other  sacrament, 
the  "  sacrament  of  service,"  as  it  has  been  called,  which 


134  LIFEOFCHRIST 

the  Christian  Church  would  do  well  to  celebrate  as 
scrupulously  as  she  has  celebrated  the  sacrament  of 
communion.  It  sets  forth  in  a  beautiful  and  unmis- 
takable fashion  the  real  spirit  of  Christianity,  the  spirit 
which  Jesus  inculcated  upon  His  followers,  and  of 
which  He  was  Himself  the  perfect  embodiment. 

Note. — The  chronology  of  the  Lord's  Supper  and 
of  the  death  of  Jesus  offers  one  of  the  most  complex 
problems  in  New  Testament  criticism.  The  facts  are 
briefly  these.  The  Synoptic  writers  appear  to  identify 
the  Lord's  Supper  with  the  paschal  meal,  and  give  the 
time  of  it  as  the  evening  before  the  Crucifixion,  which 
took  place  on  a  Friday.  St.  John,  however,  places 
the  Last  Supper  before  the  Passover,  and  makes  the 
Crucifixion  take  place  on  the  14th  of  the  month  Nisan. 
There  is  also  a  discrepancy  as  to  the  time  of  day  at 
which  the  Crucifixion  took  place.  St.  Mark  (xv.  25) 
makes  it  the  third  hour  {i.e.  9  a.m.);  St.  John  (xix.  14) 
says  that  the  trial  was  not  over  by  the  sixth  hour  (noon), 
and  therefore  the  Crucifixion  was  still  later.  There  are 
indications  in  the  Synoptists  themselves  which  are  incon- 
sistent with  the  belief  that  the  Crucifixion  took  place  at 
the  time  of  the  Passover,  and  would  therefore  go  to 
support  the  chronology  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  But 
with  no  more  than  our  existing  materials  before  us  it  is 


THE    ACTIVE    MINISTRY         135 

perhaps  safest  to  follow  the  order  of  St.  Mark.  For 
a  discussion  of  the  whole  subject  reference  may  be 
made  to  the  article  on  New  Testament  Chronology 
in  Hastings'  "  Bible  Dictionary,"  and  to  "  Some  New 
Testament  Problems "  by  A.  Wright,  p.   147  ff. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  TRIAL   AND    DEATH   OF   JESUS 

As  the  end  drew  near  Jesus'  anticipation  of  His  death 
became  more  acute.  In  that  sad  scene  which  we  call 
the  agony  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  He  faced  the 
dread  possibility  before  Him.  The  real  struggle  was 
then,  when  He  braced  Himself  to  drink  His  cup,  rather 
than  in  the  hour  and  article  of  His  suffering.  Immedi- 
ately after  the  agony,  Judas,  who  had  already  agreed 
with  certain  members  of  the  Sanhedrin  that  he  would 
help  them  to  take  Jesus  quietly,  came  at  the  head  of 
a  mixed  party  of  Temple  police,  soldiers,  and  lookers 
on,  and  delivered  Jesus  up  to  His  enemies.  It  is 
important  to  note  that  it  was  at  the  instance  of  the 
ecclesiastical  authorities  that  Jesus  was  apprehended. 
His  offence  was  against  them  and  their  traditions,  and 
it  is  clear  from  the  Gospel  narrative  that  they  had 
some  difficulty  in  making  His  guilt  clear  to  the  Roman 
authority.  It  was  the  policy  of  Rome  to  be  tolerant 
in    matters    of   religion,    and   although   Judaea   was   a 


TRIAL    AND    DEATH    OF    JESUS      137 

portion  of  a  Roman  province,  and  administered  by  a 
Roman  official,  in  religious  matters  power  still  remained 
in  the  hands  of  the  native  ecclesiastical  authorities. 
They  could  try  a  cause  and  punish  offenders  in  all 
cases  save  when  the  capital  sentence  was  passed.  In 
that  event  the  case  had  to  be  re-tried  before  the  Roman 
governor,  and  if  the  sentence  were  sustained  he  was 
responsible  for  carrying  it  out.  This  explains  the  pro- 
cedure in  the  case  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  was  first  tried 
and  condemned  by  the  ecclesiastical  authorities,  and 
then  brought  before  Pontius  Pilate,  the  Roman  governor, 
that  the  sentence  of  death  passed  on  Him  might  be 
confirmed  and  carried  out. 

According  to  the  rather  confused  accounts  in  the 
four  Gospels,  the  ecclesiastical  trial  of  Jesus  was  carried 
on  in  an  informal  and  even  irregular  fashion.  The 
prisoner  was  first  taken  before  Annas,  an  ex-high-priest 
and  father-in-law  of  the  reigning  high-priest,  Caiaphas. 
As  the  real  head  of  the  hierarchy,  though  no  longer 
holding  the  titular  position,  Annas  was  evidently  a 
prime  mover  in  the  arrest  of  Jesus,  and  probably  had 
his  own  reasons  for  wishing  to  subject  Him  to  a  private 
and  informal  cross-examination.  While  this  was  going 
on  the  Sanhedrin  was  hastily  summoned  at  the  house 
of  Caiaphas.  The  time  was  about  midnight,  and  the 
whole  of  the  proceedings  hasty  and  informal.     It  would 


138  LIFEOFCHRIST 

seem  to  show  that  the  accusers  of  Jesus  were  by  no 
means  sure  of  their  ground,  or  that  the  authorities 
still,  as  on  former  occasions,  feared  the  multitude  be- 
cause they  accounted  Him  a  prophet.  The  trial  itself, 
if  we  may  judge  from  the  accounts  before  us,  was 
altogether  irregular.  There  was  no  attempt  made  to 
formulate  a  charge,  or  even  to  call  witnesses  on 
both  sides.  The  judges  who  were  the  members  of  the 
Sanhedrin  interrogated  Jesus  with  regard  to  His  acts 
and  teaching,  and  very  easily  convicted  Him  of  what 
they  called  blasphemy.  Something  more  was  necessary, 
however,  if  the  matter  was  to  go  any  further,  and 
Jesus  brought  under  the  Roman  jurisdiction.  His 
enemies  from  the  first  were  anxious  to  silence  Him 
for  ever,  and  to  this  end  they  sought  to  obtain  a  charge 
of  conspiracy  against  Caesar.  To  prove  that  Jesus  was 
seeking  to  make  Himself  the  head  of  a  revolutionary 
party  would  do  all  they  needed.  According  to  the 
Gospel  story,  suborned  witnesses  were  easily  found, 
who  based  the  necessary  charge  on  a  misunderstanding 
of  the  words  which  Jesus  had  used  in  regard  to  the 
Temple.  It  was  not  altogether  satisfactory,  however, 
and  the  high-priest  asked  Jesus  point  blank,  "Tell 
us  whether  thou  be  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God."  To 
this  the  answer  came  at  once,  "  I  am,  and  hereafter  ye 
shall  see  the  Son  of  man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of 


TRIAL    AND    DEATH    OF    JESUS     139 

power  and  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven."  The 
great  confession  was  lost  upon  the  judges,  and  served 
only  to  bring  to  a  head  their  long-gathering  hate. 
They  turned  on  Jesus  with  the  ferocity  of  animals, 
smote  and  spat  upon  Him  whom  they  were  there  to 
judge.  The  so-called  trial  ended  in  confusion,  and  the 
majority  judged  Jesus  worthy  of  death. 

jNIeanwhile  Jesus  had  not  been  altogether  forsaken 
by  His  disciples.  Though  they  had  fled  in  the  first 
panic  of  the  arrest,  Peter,  and  probably  others  with 
him,  had  followed  Jesus  at  a  distance,  and  mingling 
with  the  crowd,  \vaited  in  the  court  of  the  high-priest's 
house  to  hear  how  matters  were  going  on.  While 
waiting,  Peter  was  challenged  once  and  again  as  a 
manifest  Galilean,  and  accused  of  being  one  of  the 
companions  of  Jesus.  The  man  w^as  terrified,  and  at 
first  prevaricated,  and  then  with  all  the  excitement 
of  an  Oriental  denied  with  oaths  that  he  knew  any- 
thing of  Jesus.  Just  at  that  moment  a  cock  crowed, 
and  Peter,  remembering  the  half-prophetic  words  of 
Jesus,  went  out  weeping  bitterly. 

When  the  next  day  dawned,  a  deputation  of 
priests  and  elders,  representing  the  Sanhedrin,  carried 
Jesus  a  prisoner  before  the  Roman  governor,  Pilate. 
The  charge  they  preferred  was  skilfully  concocted. 
"We   found   this   man  perverting  our  nation,  and  for- 


I40  LIFEOFCHRIST 

bidding  to  give  tribute  to  Caesar,  and  saying  that  he 
himself  is  Christ,  a  king."  Pilate  was  shrewd  enough 
to  doubt  their  zeal  for  Caesar,  and  probably  realised 
from  the  first  that  they  were  moved  by  religious 
fanaticism.  He  knew  the  turbulent  kind  of  folk  he  had 
to  deal  with,  and  moved  warily.  The  prisoner  before 
him,  in  His  simple  Galilean  dress,  worn  out  with  the 
strain  through  which  He  had  passed,  and  bearing  the 
marks  of  the  cruel  treatment  of  His  enemies,  did  not 
seem  very  formidable,  and  certainly  did  not  look 
like  a  king.  It  was  with  a  kind  of  irony,  therefore, 
that  he  asked,  "Art  thou  the  King  of  the  Jews?" 
Jesus  replied  simply,  "Thou  sayest."  There  was  no 
defiance  of  Caesar  in  such  an  answer,  and  Pilate  wished 
for  something  more  explicit.  He  has  a  rough  sense  of 
justice,  and  can  see  no  evidence  of  the  serious  crime  of 
rebellion.  The  accusers  of  Jesus  repeat  the  charge  and 
magnify  it,  but  when  Jesus  is  asked  to  answer  them  He 
maintains  a  silence  which  puzzles  and  surprises  His 
judge.  It  looked  as  though  he  would  set  Him  free, 
when  just  then  the  proceedings  are  interrupted  by  the 
clamour  of  the  crowd  for  the  release  of  a  prisoner, 
according  to  time-honoured  custom,  at  the  Passover. 
To  Pilate  this  presented  a  way  out  of  his  difficulty.  He 
knew  that  Jesus  was  popular  with  the  crowd,  and  it  was 
with   a   sense   of  gracious   concession   that    he   asked, 


TRIAL   AND    DEATH    OF   JESUS     141 

''Shall  I,  then,  release  unto  you  your  king?"  At  the 
moment  the  people  might  have  consented,  but  the  priests, 
their  leaders,  passed  round  the  word  that  the  right  man 
to  ask  for  was  Barabbas,  a  real  patriot,  while  Jesus  was  a 
lawbreaker  and  blasphemer.  To  Pilate  they  said,  "If 
thou  release  this  man  thou  art  not  Caesar's  friend,"  and 
they  knew  the  power  of  their  words.  The  crowd  then 
clamoured  for  the  release  of  Barabbas,  and  when  Pilate 
asked  them  what  he  should  do  with  Jesus  their  king, 
they  cried,  "  Away  with  him  !  Crucify  him  !  "  The 
Roman  was  more  puzzled  than  ever.  If  Jesus  were 
really  an  enemy  of  Rome,  why  in  the  world  should  the 
crowd  want  His  death,  and  he  asked  them,  "  What  crime 
has  he  committed?"  That  was  a  question  which  no 
one  could  answer,  and  priests  and  people  alike  covered 
-their  confusion  in  a  wild  clamour,  "  Crucify  him  !  Cru- 
cify him !  "  Half  frightened  and  half  ashamed,  Pilate 
solemnly  washed  his  hands  of  responsibility,  and  then 
handed  Jesus  over  to  the  guard,  condemned  to  be  put  to 
death  by  crucifixion.  His  action  was  simply  a  cowardly 
concession  to  the  violence  of  the  mob.  Through  all 
this  Jesus  remained  outwardly  calm.  For  Him  the 
bitterness  of  death  was  passed  already.  He  quietly 
submitted  Himself  to  the  soldiers  when,  according  to 
the  brutal  custom,  they  scourged  Him  as  a  preliminary 
to  the  execution.     They  added,  too,  insult  to  the  injury,. 


142  LIFEOFCHRIST 

mocking  His  weakness.  They  put  on  Him  a  purple 
robe,  and  plaited  a  crown  of  some  thorny  shrub  for  His 
head,  and  put  a  reed  for  sceptre  in  His  hand.  Then, 
after  making  feigned  obeisance  to  Him,  they  beat  Him 
with  His  own  sceptre,  and  spat  in  His  face.  After  this 
cruel  horseplay  they  took  Jesus  to  the  place  of  execution, 
along  with  two  robbers  condemned  to  suffer  the  same 
fate.  It  was  the  custom  that  the  criminal,  on  this  his 
last  journey,  should  carry  at  least  part  of  the  instrument 
of  torture  on  which  he  was  to  die.  The  load  proved  too 
much  for  Jesus,  and  He  sank  under  the  weight  of  it. 
The  soldiers  then  impressed  a  passer-by  to  bear  the 
burden,  and  his  name  has  been  handed  down — one 
Simon  of  Cyrene.  Arrived  at  the  rising  ground  outside 
the  city  called  the  "  place  of  a  skull,"  the  soldiers,  before 
putting  up  the  cross,  offered  Jesus  drugged  wine  as  a 
narcotic.  This  He  refused,  as  though  willing  to  bear 
to  the  uttermost  all  that  came  upon  Him.  He  was 
then  nailed  to  the  cross  by  His  hands  and  feet,  and  the 
cross  having  been  raised,  He  was  left  hanging  there  to 
die.  Above  His  head  was  the  inscription,  ^'The  King 
of  the  Jews."  The  soldiers  sat  round  waiting  for  the 
end,  and  occupied  the  time  by  casting  lots  for  the 
clothes  of  the  victims,  which  were  their  perquisites.  In 
addition  to  the  soldiers  a  considerable  crowd  gathered. 
Some  were  priests  and  elders  come  to  see  their  work  com- 


TRIAL   AND    DEATH    OF    JESUS     143 

pleted,  and  others  passers-by  interested  in  the  scene, 
while  in  the  distance  was  a  group  of  women,  friends  of 
Jesus.  There  were  not  wanting  those  who  mocked  the 
victim  with  His  helplessness  and  spent  the  time  in 
ribald  jesting.  It  was  about  nine  in  the  morning  when 
the  dread  scene  began,  and  as  the  day  wore  on  men 
tired  of  the  spectacle,  and  Jesus  was  left  almost  alone 
with  His  guards,  and  the  little  group  of  agonised 
friends.  To  these  the  whole  earth  seemed  darkened 
by  the  tragedy,  and  the  very  heavens  to  veil  themselves. 
Once  and  again  Jesus  spoke,  and  fragments  of  His  words 
have  come  down  to  us.  But  at  last,  long  after  midday, 
with  a  great  and  bitter  cry  He  yielded  up  His  spirit. 
Through  all  the  long  agony  no  hand  was  stretched  out 
to  help  Him,  and  the  heavens  above  were  silent.  Such 
was  His  demeanour,  however,  and  such  the  manner  of 
His  passing,  that  when  all  was  over  the  captain  of  the 
soldiers  cried,  "Truly  this  man  was  a  Son  of  God." 

The  body  of  Jesus  was  left  hanging  on  the  cross  till 
the  evening,  and  would  have  remained  there  in  all 
probability  till  the  Sabbath  was  over,  had  not  one  Joseph 
of  Arimathsea  asked  Pilate's  permission  to  remove  it. 
Pilate  first  made  inquiry  to  see  if  He  were  really  dead, 
and  then  gave  permission  for  the  burial.  Joseph  and 
the  women  took  the  body  of  Jesus  down  from  the  cross, 
and  with  the  due   rites  buried  it  in  a  rock  tomb,  the 


144  LIFE    OF   CHRIST 

entrance  to  which  they  closed  with  a   great  boulder  of 
stone. 

Such,  in  simplest  outline,  is  the  story  of  the  greatest 
event  in  the  history  of  the  world.  There  is  always 
something  majestic  about  the  death  of  a  great  man, 
and  the  death  of  Jesus  was  no  exception.  But  it 
was  not  with  Him  as  with  other  men,  that  His  death 
put  a  period  to  His  earthly  activities  and  closed  His 
career  for  ever.  Certain  results  dated  from  it,  and  it 
must  be  looked  at  in  the  light  of  them  if  it  is  to  be 
understood  and  its  place  in  history  fully  realised.  As  we 
have  seen  already,  Jesus  Himself  anticipated  His  death 
in  a  way  which  was,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  unusual.  It  was 
not  merely  that  He  feared  that  His  teaching  would  bring 
Him  into  conflict  with  the  authorities  and  so  imperil 
His  life.  It  was  not,  in  other  words,  that  He  looked 
forward  to  His  martyrdom  as  a  most  probable  conse- 
quence of  His  actions.  He  rather  regarded  His  death 
by  violent  means  as  a  necessary  part  of  the  work  He 
came  into  the  world  to  do,  as  a  consummation  without 
which  that  work  would  have  been  left  incomplete.  The 
language  He  used  in  regard  to  it  was  the  language  of 
sacrifice,  made  intelligible  enough  to  His  hearers,  and 
consecrated  by  generations  of  usage.  This  conclusion 
cannot  be  altogether  evaded  by  the  suggestion  that  His 
followers  read  these  ideas  into  the  event  in  retrospect.    It 


TRIAL    AND    DEATH    OF    JESUS     145 

only  makes  the  mystery  deeper,  for  it  is  impossible  to 
give  any  reason  why  they  should  have  done  so  apart 
from  the  interpretation  of  His  work  and  person  derived 
from  Jesus  Himself.  The  sequel  showed' that  the  death 
of  Jesus  was  pivotal  to  the  whole  system  of  His  teaching 
and  life.  In  the  preaching  of  the  first  apostles  of  the 
Church  it  occupies  an  altogether  disproportionate  place. 
They  spoke  of  His  death  not  as  a  martyrdom,  still  less 
as  a  cruel  and  bitter  end  to  all  the  hopes  they  had 
founded  upon  Him,  but  as  His  own  voluntary  act,  an 
act  by  which  the  whole  human  race  was  to  be  benefited 
for  all  time.  In  the  eyes  of  the  first  Christians  there 
was  a  moral  splendour  and  a  moral  value  about  the 
death  of  Jesus  which  made  it  the  transcendent  act  in 
His  career.  The  cross  on  which  He  died  had  been 
regarded  hitherto  as  a  symbol  of  all  that  was  most 
cruel  and  shameful ;  the  fact  that  He  had  died  upon  it 
lifted  it  at  once  into  a  new  category,  and  it  became  the 
symbol  instead  of  a  life-giving  and  beneficent  power. 
It  was  in  the  death  of  Jesus  that  His  saving  activity  was 
demonstrated,  and  it  gave  to  Him,  and  to  all  those  who 
by  faith  participated  in  it,  an  irresistible  power  over 
man's  ancient  enemy,  sin.  The  secret  of  the  power  of 
this  idea  of  a  sacrificial  death  for  sin  over  the  human 
heart  is  one  of  the  mysteries  of  psychology,  and  for  the 
moment  we  are  not  concerned  to  seek  an  explanation  of 

K 


146  LIFEOFCHRIST 

it.  But  we  are  concerned  with  the  fact  itself.  It  is  of 
immense  importance  in  determining  the  interpretation 
put  upon  Jesus  Christ  by  those  who  were  nearest  to 
Him  in  point  of  time,  and  therefore  we  may  presume 
also  of  understanding.  Reading  back  from  their  point 
of  view,  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  they  re- 
garded Him  as  one  who  had  an  unique  right  of  repre- 
senting God  to  man,  who  spake  with  authority  in  God's 
name,  and  who  stood  by  His  very  nature  in  close  and 
intimate  connection  with  the  whole  human  race.  His 
voluntary  death  upon  the  cross  was  regarded  as  in  some 
way  a  death  in  behalf  of  men.  It  was  a  supreme  mani- 
festation of  the  sinfulness  of  sin,  of  the  love  of  God, 
and  of  the  possibihty  of  salvation  through  sacrifice. 
To  this  interpretation  the  religious  ideas  of  the  Jewish 
people  naturally  lent  themselves,  and  it  was  not  surpris- 
ing perhaps  that  it  should  find  vogue  amongst  them. 
But  it  spread  rapidly  far  beyond  the  confines  of  Judaism, 
and  found  an  answering  echo  in  human  hearts  every- 
where. It  has  been  among  the  most  moving  and  potent 
of  religious  forces.  That  it  was  no  more  than  a  theory 
invented  by  the  excited  imaginations  of  the  disciples,  and 
improved  upon  and  formulated  by  St.  Paul,  is  frankly 
incredible.  Its  origin  is  to  be  traced  to  the  conscious- 
ness of  Jesus  Christ,  and  its  power  to  the  facts  of  His 
nature — that  He  was  both  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  man. 


CHAPTER   XI 

THE  RESURRECTION  AND  ASCENSION 

The  burial  of  Jesus  in  Joseph's  tomb  was  probably 
not  intended  to  be  final.  It  was  rather  a  hurried  and 
temporary  disposal  of  His  body  until  the  Sabbath 
should  be  over  and  there  should  be  a  better  oppor- 
tunity of  paying  to  it  the  last  sad  rites.  It  was 
probably  in  view  of  this  that  after  the  Sabbath,  quite 
early  in  the  morning,  some  of  the  women  friends  of 
Jesus  made  their  way  to  His  tomb,  that  they  might 
anoint  the  body  and  prepare  it  in  due  form  for  its 
final  resting-place.  On  arrival  at  the  grave,  they  found 
the  stone  rolled  away  from  the  entrance  and  the  body 
of  Jesus  vanished.  The  grave-clothes  were  there,  and 
beside  them  sat  a  youth  in  white  raiment  whom  they 
took  for  an  angel,  and  who  told  them  that  Jesus  had  risen, 
and  that  they  were  to  inform  the  disciples  of  the  fact. 
Terrified  and  perplexed,  the  women  ran  to  the  disciples 
with  the  news,  and  these  in  turn  hastened  to  the  tomb 

to   prove   it  for   themselves.     Shortly  afterwards  Jesus 

147 


148  LIFEOFCHRIST 

appeared  to  Mary  and  then  to  the  disciples.  Once  and 
again  He  visited  them,  assured  them  that  He  was  indeed 
risen  from  the  dead,  and  commissioned  them  to  go 
forth  and  preach  in  His  name  to  all  the  world.  Accord- 
ing to  the  accounts  before  us,  he  remained  with  them 
some  forty  days  until  "  he  was  taken  up  and  a  cloud 
received  him  out  of  their  sight." 

In  this  bare  outline  of  the  story  there  is  material 
enough  for  wonder  and  surmise.  We  have  purposely 
refrained  from  giving  the  details  of  the  narrative,  because 
the  sources  are  not  agreed  upon  them.  It  is  useless 
to  shut  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  the  discrepancies  be- 
tween them  are  numerous  and  serious.  Briefly,  there 
are  discrepancies  in  regard  to  the  time  at  which  the 
women  visited  the  sepulchre,  and  in  regard  to  the 
number  of  the  women  themselves,  in  regard  to  what 
was  seen  at  the  sepulchre,  and  in  regard  to  the  instruc- 
tions given  to  the  women  and  by  them  to  the  disciples. 
Also  there  are  serious  differences  in  the  Gospel  accounts 
of  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus  to  His  disciples. 
The  scene  of  these  appearances  is  sometimes  given  as 
Galilee  and  sometimes  as  Jerusalem.  Matthew  and  Mark 
throw  the  stress  on  Galilee,  while  Luke  and  John  xx. 
are  based  on  appearances  in  Jerusalem.  All  the  sources 
agree  that  the  disciples  were  in  Jerusalem  on  the  Re- 
surrection  morning.     When  all  these  points  are  taken 


THE    RESURRECTION  149 

into  account  they  present  us  with  a  problem  of  extreme 
difficulty  and  complexity,  but  they  do  not  warrant  us 
in  denying  the  fact  of  the  Resurrection  altogether,  and 
relegating  the  accounts  of  it  to  the  realm  of  myth. 
These  very  differences  show  underlying  them  an  in- 
dependent knowledge  of  the  event  on  the  part  of 
bona-fide  reporters.  In  the  absence  of  the  trained 
scientific  observer,  full  weight  has  to  be  given  to  this 
point. 

It  has  also  to  be  remembered  that  the  strongest 
evidence  for  the  fact  of  the  Resurrection  is  to  be  found 
outside  the  Gospel  narratives.  In  his  first  letter  to  the 
Corinthians  (chap,  xv.)  St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  Resur- 
rection as  being  in  his  belief,  and  in  that  of  Christians 
generally,  the  very  foundation  of  their  faith,  and  he 
enumerates  in  attestation  of  the  fact  the  appearances  of 
the  risen  Jesus  of  which  he  knows — viz.  to  Peter,  to  the 
twelve,  to  a  body  of  more  than  five  hundred  disciples, 
to  James,  and  to  "  all  the  apostles."  There  can  be 
no  question  as  to  the  value  of  St.  Paul  as  a  witness — 
not  so  much  to  the  fact,  perhaps,  but  to  the  strong 
conviction  of  the  contemporaries  of  Jesus  that  He 
had  risen  from  the  grave  and  was  alive  for  evermore. 
Even  a  critic  like  Schmiedel  admits  that  "  the  historian 
who  will  have  it  that  the  alleged  appearances  are  due 
merely  to  legend  or  to  invention  must  deny  not  only 


ISO  LIFEOFCHRIST 

the  genuineness  of  the  Pauline  epistles,  but  also  the 
historicity  of  Jesus  altogether."  It  may  not  be  possible 
to  give  an  exact  and  detailed  description  of  the  event 
itself,  but  that  "  something  happened "  at  the  grave 
in  the  garden  may  be  taken  as  an  indisputable  fact. 
It  must  also  be  admitted  that  that  "  something "  was 
of  a  nature  to  convince  the  disciples  of  Jesus  that 
He  had  risen  from  the  dead,  to  rouse  them  from  the 
despair  into  which  His  crucifixion  had  thrown  them, 
and  to  send  them  forth  upon  their  mission,  ready  to 
stake  their  very  existence  on  the  belief  that  He  was 
alive  for  evermore. 

It  must  be  confessed  that  the  real  objection  to  the 
story  of  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus  is  not  to  be  found 
in  the  weakness  of  the  historical  argument  but  in  the 
modern  objection  to  the  miracle  which  the  story  in- 
volves. Historically  the  account  given  in  the  Bible  is 
sufficient  for  all  practical  purposes,  and  would  never 
have  been  questioned  had  it  referred  to  some  every- 
day event.  It  is  the  character  of  the  event  itself,  rather 
than  the  account  of  it,  which  creates  the  difficulty. 
Accepted  as  it  stands  it  involves  a  miracle.  Hence 
the  necessity  of  trying  to  explain  it  away.  It  is  this 
consideration  which  has  given  rise  to  the  numerous 
attempts  to  account  for  the  story  on  more  or  less 
naturalistic  grounds.     It  has  been  urged,  for  instance, 


THE    RESURRECTION  151 

that  the  death  of  Jesus  was  only  a  swoon,  and  that  He 
recovered  and  appeared  again  among  His  friends  really 
alive.  Or  it  has  been  argued  that  His  body  was  stolen 
by  Joseph  of  Arimathsea,  and  the  report  of  His  resurrec- 
tion spread  abroad — the  empty  tomb  being  shown  as 
proof.  Hypotheses  such  as  these,  however,  have  now 
been  frankly  abandoned.  There  is  nothing  whatever  in 
our  sources  to  justify  them,  and  they  really  raise  more 
difficulties  than  they  settle.  Much  more  persistent  and 
widespread  is  what  is  called  the  vision  hypothesis. 
This  presupposes  a  certain  expectation  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  disciples,  an  expectation  which 
was  fostered  and  encouraged  by  their  extreme  disap- 
pointment at  the  death  of  Jesus.  Given,  it  is  said,  a 
number  of  men  in  this  grief-stricken  and  excited  con- 
dition, and  given  on  their  part  a  keen  desire  and  even 
expectation  that  their  loved  Master  would  appear  to 
them  again,  and  you  have  all  the  conditions  which  make 
the  vision  of  the  risen  Lord  not  only  possible  but 
even  psychologically  procable.  This  is  no  doubt  true, 
given  the  necessary  conditions.  But  the  weak  point  of 
the  argument  is  just  here.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
narrative  to  indicate  that  there  was  on  the  part  of  the 
disciples  this  lively  hope  and  expectation  that  Jesus 
would  rise  again.  However,  such  a  condition  of  en- 
thusiastic anticipation  would  require  time  for  its  growth 


152  LIFE    OF    CHRIST 

and  realisation,  and  there  is  no  part  of  the  Gospel 
tradition  which  is  more  persistent  than  that  of  the 
"third  day."  Nor  is  there  any  trace  in  our  sources  of 
this  kind  of  subjective  hallucination  in  the  appearance 
which  Jesus  made  to  His  friends.  Such  an  explanation, 
again,  is  not  adequate  to  the  facts  before  us,  and  only 
serves  to  increase  our  difficulties.  Neither  fraud  nor 
illusion  are  sufficient  to  account  for  those  vast  and  far- 
reaching  events  which  are  based  on  the  behef  that 
Jesus  rose  from  the  dead. 

It  should  be  easily  apparent  that  this  belief  cannot 
be  dissociated  from  our  general  interpretation  of  the 
life  and  teaching  of  Jesus.  If  it  stood  by  itself,  an 
isolated  phenomenon  in  the  life  of  a  great  teacher, 
it  would  be  miraculous  indeed,  and  practically  in- 
explicable. But  coming  as  it  does,  as  the  culmination 
of  a  long  series  of  events  all  of  which  point  to  the 
same  conclusion,  there  is  at  least  a  strong  balance  of 
probability  in  favour  of  the  usual  interpretation.  It 
must  not  be  forgotten  also  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
morally  no  ordinary  man.  The  claims  which  He  made 
in  regard  to  His  relationship  both  to  man  and  God 
were  such  as  to  lift  Him  into  a  category  by  Him- 
self, and  all  the  accounts  given  of  Him  need  to  be 
viewed  in  the  light  of  these  claims.  He  could  have 
said,  in  a  sense  that  was  far  wider  than  any  that  the 


THE    RESURRECTION  153 

poet  could  have  used,  Noti  ojnnis  7noriar,  and  His 
victory  over  death,  and  the  assurance  of  an  eternal 
life  thus  given  in  His  own  person,  were  but  the 
natural  sequence  of  His  whole  career.  So,  again,  the 
Resurrection  of  Jesus  cannot  be  separated  from  the 
results  which  have  been  founded  upon  it  in  history. 
As  has  already  been  pointed  out,  it  is  very  difficult, 
if  not  impossible,  to  account  for  these  on  the  basis 
either  of  fraud  or  illusion.  Experience  shows  that 
things  do  not  happen  in  that  way.  The  pyramid  is 
not  balanced  on  its  apex.  That  which  caused  the 
Christian  Church,  and  overthrew  the  Empire  of  Rome, 
and  turned  the  world  upside  down,  must  have  been 
in  itself  great  enough  and  powerful  enough  to  originate 
these  events.  The  memory  which  Jesus  left  to  His 
disciples,  and  the  inspiration  of  His  teaching,  were 
moving  enough,  no  doubt.  But  it  was  not  these 
things  which  drove  them  out  to  preach  and  suffer 
in  His  name.  It  was  the  sense  that  He  was  not  dead, 
but  alive,  an  ever-present  power  in  and  with  His 
followers,  that  gave  them  heart  and  hope.  St.  Paul's 
testimony  on  this  point  is  explicit.  It  was  based  first 
on  his  own  experience,  and  then  on  the  logic  of  that 
experience  as  reflection  discovered  it  and  saw  it  exempli- 
fied in  others.  Faith  working  upon  the  fact  proved  it 
by  demonstrating  its  moral  power  over  the  human  heart. 


154  LIFEOFCHRIST 

All  this,  of  course,  does  not  help  us  to  understand 
the  mystery  surrounding  the  Resurrection  appearances 
of  Jesus.  In  what  corporeal  form  He  showed  Him- 
self to  His  disciples  we  shall  probably  never  be  able 
to  understand.  "  It  was  sown  a  natural  body,  it  was 
raised  a  spiritual  body,"  is  probably  the  best  possible 
commentary  on  the  accounts  as  we  have  them.  Be- 
yond that  it  is  useless  to  inquire,  and  one  speculation 
has  no  more  value  than  another.  But  it  is  not  without 
importance  to  remember  that  the  whole  New  Testament 
view  of  the  event  is  based  on  a  materialistic  conception 
of  things  which  in  these  days  we  have  practically  out- 
grown. No  doubt  St.  Paul  repudiated  this  view,  and 
to  his  mind  resurrection  was  quite  conceivable  apart 
from  any  physical  resuscitation.  There  is  good  reason 
for  concluding  that  the  purely  spiritual  view  was  the 
earlier,  and  that  in  the  later  history,  as  well  as  in  the 
creeds  of  the  Church,  we  see  the  popular  materialistic 
idea  gradually  taking  its  place.  The  modern  student 
of  the  subject  will  not  go  very  far  astray  in  returning 
to  the  more  primitive  tradition.  The  narrative  of  the 
journey  to  Emmaus  shows  that  a  certain  moral  pre- 
paration was  required  in  order  to  see  the  risen  Jesus. 
His  appearance  to  the  disciples  involved  a  spiritual 
experience  which  was  fruitful  indeed,  and  must  be 
judged  by  its  results. 


THE    RESURRECTION  155 

It  is  often  contended  that  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus 
from  the  dead  is  the  foundation  of  the  Christian  rehgion, 
and  that  belief  in  it  is  articulus  stantis  vel  cadentis 
ecclesice.  So  at  least  St.  Paul  taught,  and  it  is  hard 
to  conceive  of  a  Christianity  whose  Christ  is  dead.  It 
should  be  clearly  understood,  however,  that  the  fact  does 
not  depend  on  the  literal  accuracy  of  every  statement 
made  about  it  in  the  Gospels.  Our  religion  does  not 
compel  us  to  accept  all  the  primitive  ideas  as  to  its 
origin,  and  it  is  matter  for  thankfulness  that  modern 
critical  inquiries  have  forced  us  to  discover  foundations 
of  the  faith  that  are  capable  of  verification  in  experience 
and  that  will  stand  all  the  tests  we  need  apply  to  them. 
History  shows  us  at  least  this,  that  the  grounds  of  belief 
in  the  Resurrection  which  the  early  Church  found  were 
sufficient  for  those  days.  The  grounds  of  our  belief  are 
also  sufficient  for  us,  though  not  necessarily  the  same  as 
theirs.  As  Bishop  Westcott  has  said  :  ^  "  The  Resurrec- 
tion was  and  is  an  abiding  fact.  It  was  the  beginning 
of  a  new  and  living  relation  between  the  Lord  and  His 
people.  He  came  to  them  while  He  went.  The  idea 
may  be  expressed  by  saying  that  the  apostolic  concep- 
tion of  the  Resurrection  is  rather  '  the  Lord  lives,'  than 
*  the  Lord  was  raised.'  This  important  truth  is  entirely 
overlooked  by  critics  who  lay  stress  on  the  point  that 
^  "  The  Gospel  of  the  Resurrection,"  p.  294. 


LIFE    OF    CHRIST 


'there  was  no  eye-witness  of  the  Resurrection.'  It  is 
impossible  to  see  what  we  should  have  gained  by  the 
testimony  of  such  a  witness,  or  what  he  could  have 
established  which  was  not  established  by  the  intercourse 
of  the  living  Lord  with  His  disciples.  That  which  had 
to  be  made  clear  as  to  Christ  was  the  reality  of  His 
new  life.  This  was  first  established  for  the  apostles 
by  their  complete  experience  of  the  continuity  of  His 
manifestation  to  them,  and  for  the  Church  in  all  ages 
through  the  signs  of  His  power.  And  it  is  here  that 
the  'proof  of  the  Resurrection  is  to  be  found.  Christ 
lives,  for  He  works  still." 


CHAPTER   XII 

THE   CHARACTER   AND   WORK    OF   JESUS 

No  attempt  to  sum  up  the  impression  made  by  Jesus 
Christ  can  be  successful  or  approach  the  truth  which 
does  not  recognise  its  primarily  ethical  quality.  Inade- 
quate as  are  our  materials  for  the  study  of  the  life  of 
Jesus,  and  difficult  as  it  is  to  make  use  of  them,  it  has 
yet  to  be  confessed  that  they  provide  a  background 
against  which  the  moral  and  spiritual  personality  of 
Jesus  stands  out  clear  and  sharp.  It  is  not  merely 
that  He  followed  the  prophets  in  preaching  a  "  better 
righteousness."  He  showed  Himself  greater  than  the 
prophets  by  exemplifying  this  righteousness  in  His  own 
person.  That  is  why  the  person  of  Jesus  is  a  greater 
thing  than  His  teaching  or  His  work.  The  Christian 
Church  has  shown  her  sense  of  the  importance  of  this 
by  laying  stress  on  the  doctrine  of  His  sinlessness,  but 
this  purely  dogmatic  interpretation  must  not  be  allowed 
to  blind  us  to  the  facts  behind  it.  The  modern  ten- 
dency is  to  lay  stress  on  the  holiness  rather  than  on  the 


158  LIFEOFCHRIST 

sinlessness  of  Jesus.  The  one  involves  the  other.  But 
the  character  of  Jesus  must  be  studied  without  precon- 
ceptions. He  was  very  man,  and  played  His  part  on 
the  arena  of  a  full  human  life.  He  was  tempted  like  as 
we  are,  but  did  not  yield  to  temptation  as  we  do.  In 
contradiction  to  a  generally  received  opinion,  the  domi- 
nant feature  in  His  character  was  a  certain  strength  and 
authoritativeness.  He  showed  a  mastery  of  men  and  of 
truth  that  seemed  a  very  strange  thing  in  an  age  of 
pedants  and  imitators.  There  was  about  Him  an  entire 
absence  of  fear  or  even  of  hesitation.  He  went  on  His 
course  steadfastly,  turning  neither  to  the  right  hand  nor 
to  the  left,  and  that  is  why  men  have  so  willingly  made 
Him  their  guide.  Then  His  strength  of  will  meant  also 
strength  of  mind.  For  though  he  was  an  idealist,  He 
was  without  illusions.  He  understood  what  His  mission 
meant,  and  was  prepared  to  pay  the  inevitable  price  of 
His  work.  He  was  content  that  God's  ways  should  be 
His  own  :  "  My  Father  worketh  hitherto  and  I  work." 
So  it  came  about  that  He  did  not  argue  so  much  as 
teach.  His  process  was  intuitive,  and  the  success  of  it 
is  best  judged  by  the  fact  that  men  were  only  too  ready 
to  take  Him  at  His  word.  They  recognised  that  here 
was  one  who  at  least  had  a  right  to  speak.  But  along 
with  this  strength  there  was  in  Jesus  a  singular  tender- 
ness.    It  is  often  said  that  He  combined  in  Himself  the 


CHARACTER    OF    JESUS  159 

mascuHne  and  the  feminine  as  no  other  character  has 
ever  done.  The  explanation  leaves  something  to  be 
desired,  for  there  was  a  strength  even  in  the  tenderness 
of  Jesus  that  was  greater  than  that  of  women.  In  His 
attitude  towards  men  He  was  the  embodiment  of  what 
we  call  love.  But  with  Him  love  was  neither  blind 
nor  soft.  He  loved  men  though  He  knew  what  was  in 
them.  His  knowledge  of  their  greatness  and  of  their 
possibilities  made  Him  condemn  their  sins  and  rebuke 
their  follies  in  the  most  unmistakable  terms.  With  all 
His  sanity  of  judgment  He  never  ceased  to  hope,  and 
He  never  compromised  with  evil.  By  us  conduct  and 
duty  are  seen  in  a  kind  of  moral  haze,  but  to  His  eyes 
all  the  outlines  were  sharp  and  clear.  So  His  love  was 
more  than  an  easy-going  good  nature.  The  note  of 
sacrifice  was  in  it  from  the  first,  and  this  gave  it  both 
pith  and  power.  It  was  entirely  without  that  alloy  of 
selfishness  which  so  often  taints  human  love  even  at  its 
best.  Loving  men,  Jesus  loved  them  to  the  uttermost, 
and  gave  Himself  for  their  salvation. 

This  calm  estimate  of  His  work  and  of  its  conse- 
quences was  altogether  of  a  piece  with  His  sanity  and 
serenity  of  outlook  upon  life  in  general.  In  the  records 
of  His  career  there  are  moments  of  deep  disturbance 
when  His  whole  soul  is  convulsed  with  an  agony  of 
protest.     But  there  are  a  meaning  and  dignity  about 


i6o  LIFEOFCHRIST 

these  crises  that  lift  them  far  above  the  fears  and  worries 
of  our  common  human  nature.  Jesus  was  absolutely 
without  worry.  His  trust  in  God  was  profound,  and 
His  perspective  was  so  true  that  He  always  saw  this 
life  sub  specie  eternitatis,  and  was  able  to  put  their  true 
values  upon  things.  He  had  no  hesitation  in  rebuking 
the  short-sightedness  of  the  men  who  saw  otherwise. 
He  came,  indeed,  to  open  their  eyes,  and  the  spirit  of 
His  simple  faith  in  God's  goodness  and  providence  is 
one  that  all  His  followers  may  well  seek  to  catch. 
Jesus'  estimate  of  moral  values  was  of  the  same  order 
as  His  estimate  of  the  spiritual.  Mere  surface  goodness 
was  worth  nothing  in  His  eyes.  If  it  acted  as  a  cloak 
to  unrighteousness,  it  was  an  altogether  mischievous 
thing.  He  had  the  single  eye  to  some  purpose,  for  He 
was  able  to  see  not  only  the  shams  of  the  outside,  but 
that  inner  worth  and  possibility  in  imperfection  to  which 
others  were  wholly  blind.  "The  soul  of  goodness  in 
things  evil "  was  a  very  positive  reality  to  Jesus  Christ. 
It  was  this  power  of  vision,  at  once  deep  and  wide, 
which  made  possible  the  meekness  and  humility  of 
Jesus.  If,  as  Pascal  says.  He  was  "  magnificent  in  His 
humiliation,"  it  was  because  His  character  was  so  com- 
plete and  well  rounded  that  He  could  be  independent 
of  ordinary  human  judgments.  To  us  there  is  always 
a  strain  of  weakness  in  these  minor  and  self-effacing 


CHARACTER    OF    JESUS  i6i 

virtues,  because  with  us  character  is  so  invariably  one- 
sided. The  meekness  of  Jesus  was  no  exaggeration, 
it  was  simply  a  consequence  of  His  personality.  His 
whole  Being  on  earth  was  a  surrender,  a  stooping,  and 
the  thing  was  beautiful  in  Him  because  natural. 

Thus  there  is  some  show  of  reason  in  attributing  to 
Jesus  the  characteristics  of  those  apparently  opposite 
forms  of  temperament,  the  ascetic  and  the  aesthetic. 
There  were  in  Him  Hellenic  elements  as  well  as 
Hebraic.  He  had  affinities  with  Stoic  and  with  Epi- 
curean. But  the  mere  mention  of  these  names  shows 
how  impossible  it  is  to  label  Him  with  any  of  the 
conventional  titles.  His  asceticism  was  not  that  of  the 
fanatics  of  His  own  or  any  other  age.  It  was  moral 
and  spiritual  rather  than  ceremonial.  It  governed  not 
so  much  His  actions  as  His  attitude  to  life.  It  made 
Him  the  Man  of  Sorrows,  the  servant  and  friend  of  His 
people,  but  it  never  drove  Him  into  an  abandonment 
of  the  world,  nor  compelled  Him  to  count  anything  that 
God  had  made  common  or  unclean.  The  spirit  of 
sacrifice  and  self-denial  came  to  Him  as  a  natural  con- 
dition of  His  being  and  work,  and  was  not  adopted  as 
a  form  of  spiritual  gymnastic.  He  denied  Himself  for 
the  sake  of  others,  and  not  in  order  to  perfect  His  own 
religious  development.  So  his  self-sacrifice  was  entirely 
compatible  with  a  free  and  joyous  outlook  upon  life. 

L 


i62  LIFEOFCHRIST 

To  His  mind  the  whole  universe  is  beautiful  and  elo- 
quent. He  is  quick  to  note  the  glad  and  hopeful  side, 
both  in  nature  and  in  humanity.  These  things,  how- 
ever, are  all  subordinate  to  the  main  purpose  of  His 
being  and  work.  This  is,  in  a  word,  to  glorify  the 
Father  in  heaven,  to  take  account  of  and  to  make  real 
to  men  that  divine  and  spiritual  side  of  things  which  is 
too  easily  overlooked.  This  is  His  real  business,  and 
the  pursuit  of  this  sets  Him  apart  from  all  others  on 
this  earth.  He  sees  things  which  they  cannot  see,  and 
in  the  midst  of  the  crowd  He  stands  solitary  and  apart. 
"  Here  indeed  is  the  pathos  of  the  character  of  Jesus ; 
yet  here  also  we  approach  the  source  of  His  strength. 
It  was  in  this  detachment  of  nature,  this  isolation  of  the 
inner  life,  that  Jesus  found  His  communion  with  the 
life  of  God.  At  this  point  His  ethics  melt  into  His 
religion.  The  crowd  press  round  Him,  and  He  serves 
them  gladly,  and  then  it  seems  as  if  His  nature  de- 
manded solitude  for  the  refreshment  of  His  faith.  The 
tide  of  the  Spirit  ebbs  from  Him  in  the  throng,  and 
when  He  goes  apart  He  is  least  alone,  because  the 
Father  is  with  Him.  Thus,  from  utterance  to  silence, 
from  giving  to  receiving,  from  society  to  solitude,  the 
rhythm  of  His  nature  moves :  and  the  power  which  is 
spent  in  service  is  renewed  in  isolation.  He  is  able  to 
bear  the  crosses  of  others  because  He  bears  His  own. 


CHARACTER    OF    JESUS  163 

He  can  be  of  use  to  men  because  He  can  do  without 
men.  He  is  ethically  effective  because  He  is  spiritually 
free.  He  is  able  to  save  because  He  is  strong  to  suffer. 
His  sympathy  and  his  solitude  are  both  alike  the 
instruments  of  His  strength."^  This  solitariness  of 
Jesus  takes  Him  out  of  all  human  categories,  and  makes 
it  impossible  to  judge  Him  by  human  standards.  It  is 
the  hall-mark  of  His  divinity.  In  His  relation  to  the 
men  and  women  who  were  His  contemporaries,  as  well 
as  in  His  relation  to  the  Father  in  heaven,  He  stands 
altogether  alone. 

The  character  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  estimate 
formed  of  Him  by  His  followers,  determined  His  work 
in  the  early  days  of  the  Church.  The  Christian  re- 
ligion is  pre-eminently  the  religion  of  a  Person.  St. 
Paul's  confession,  "  Yea,  though  we  have  known  Christ 
after  the  flesh,  yet  now  henceforth  know  we  Him  so 
no  more,"  became  the  guiding  principle  of  Christian 
thought  on  the  subject.  In  their  knowledge  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  in  their  relationship  to  Him,  men  found 
an  inspiration  and  a  force,  which  constituted  for  them 
a  new  life,  and  which  made  them  new  men.  The 
promise  of  Jesus,  that  He  would  draw  all  men  unto 
Himself,  found  a  very  real  fulfilment.  In  Him,  rather 
than   in  His  teaching,   there  was  an  attraction  which 

^  Peabody,  "Jesus  Christ  and  the  Christian  Character,"  p.  69. 


i64  LIFEOFCHRIST 

became  irresistible.  Thus  the  relation  of  Jesus  to 
His  early  followers  was  personal,  and  His  unique 
power  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  He  did  not  merely 
appeal  to  the  generation  to  which  they  belonged,  but 
has  continued  to  satisfy  the  highest  needs  of  men  of 
all  races  and  climes. 

To  discuss  this  subject  at  length  would  be  to  write 
a  history  of  the  Christian  Church.  All  that  we  can 
attempt  to  do  here  is  to  indicate  very  briefly  the  way 
in  which  history  justifies  the  claims  made  on  behalf 
of  Jesus,  and  carries  on  the  work  which  He  began. 
The  story  of  the  work  of  Jesus  Christ  in  history  leads 
us  out  far  beyond  the  range  of  the  Christian  Church. 
His  influence  is  not  confined  to  any  institution,  but 
goes  deeper,  and  is  to  be  discovered  in  many  places 
which  the  Church  of  the  period  refuses  to  own.  The 
process  followed  is  that  of  a  development.  In  His 
earthly  life  Jesus  dealt  with  principles  which  were 
but  half  understood  by  the  men  who  listened  to  Him, 
and  needed  time  for  their  explication.  He  cast  them 
among  humanity  as  seed  is  cast  into  the  ground,  and 
they  have  been  growing  ever  since.  But  His  teaching 
was  closely  bound  up  with  His  own  Person,  and  it 
is  to  the  power  of  His  Person  that  the  vitality  of  the 
teaching  is  mainly  due.  The  Gospels  are  exceedingly 
frank    in    portraying    the    purely    human    side   of    the 


CHARACTER    OF    JESUS  165 

personality  of  Jesus.  The  disciples  lived  with  Him 
in  ordinary  human  relations,  and  yet  He  produced 
on  them  an  impression  which  manifested  itself  in 
the  kind  of  doctrine  concerning  Him,  which  we  find 
in  the  discourses  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  in 
the  Letters  of  St.  Paul.  It  is  very  easy  to  exaggerate 
the  gulf  between  the  Jesus  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
and  the  Christ  of  the  early  Church.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  one  is  the  legitimate  consequence  of  the 
other,  and  represents  the  inevitable  result  of  any  re- 
flective process  which  has  for  its  foundation  the  life 
and  teaching  of  the  Master.  The  first  Apostles  kept 
close  to  the  historic  facts,  but  they  were  bound  to 
find  an  expression  for  the  faith  that  grew  out  of 
them.  We  shall  never  be  able  fully  to  explain  how 
it  was  that  this  Jesus,  with  whom  they  had  lived  on 
terms  of  ordinary  human  companionship,  came  to  be 
regarded  by  them  as  the  Lord  of  all,  and  as  having 
for  them  and  for  all  men  the  religious  value  of  God. 
But  we  cannot  evade  the  fact  that  they  found  in  His 
own  teaching,  and  in  His  own  presentation  of  His 
claims,  that  which  justified  them  in  seeing  in  Him 
the  Saviour  of  the  world,  and  in  describing  the  salva- 
tion which  He  brought  in  Messianic  terms.  He  was 
to  them  the  mediator  of  a  new  idea  of  God,  and  of 
a  new  redemptive  relationship  between  God  and  the 


i66  LIFE    OF    CHRIST 

world.  They  could  scarcely  find  words  strong  enough 
in  which  to  describe  His  glory  and  His  power.  They 
were  conscious  not  merely  of  sacred  memories  which 
gathered  round  Him,  but  of  an  experience  of  His 
presence  with  them,  and  activity  on  their  behalf,  which 
they  could  not  but  regard  as  real,  and  the  effects  of 
which  were  unmistakable.  The  New  Testament  shows 
us  this  reflective  process  assuming  various  forms,  and 
working  along  parallel  Hnes  in  different  directions.  Of 
these  we  may  distinguish  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the 
whole  Johannine  literature,  the  Pauline  Epistles,  the 
Petrine  tradition,  and  the  tradition  represented  by  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Each  of  these  represents 
an  individual  point  of  view,  but  all  of  them  alike 
point  back  to  the  same  source,  and  are  legitimate 
developments  from  it.  Their  work  is  not  mere 
doctrinal  speculation;  it  is  rather  the  natural  effort 
to  explain  certain  given  facts. 

Not  the  least  remarkable  feature  of  the  Apostolic 
reflection  upon  the  work  and  Person  of  Jesus,  is  the 
way  in  which  it  accepts  His  own  interpretation  of  His 
Messianic  work.  To  us  this  is  a  comparatively  easy 
thing,  and  it  requires  some  effort  of  the  imagination  to 
realise  how  hard  it  must  have  been  for  men,  brought  up 
amid  the  average  Jewish  thought  on  this  subject,  to 
adopt  a  point  of  view  concerning  it  so  alien  as  that  of 


CHARACTER    OF    JESUS  167 

Jesus.  It  is  now  generally  admitted  ^  that  while  Jesus 
claimed  to  be  the  Messiah,  He  gave  an  entirely  new 
connotation  to  the  title.  But  this  presented  little  or 
no  difficulty  to  the  Apostles,  after  the  Resurrection. 
They  accepted  Him  on  His  own  terms,  and  went  on  to 
expound  Him  to  others  on  lines  which  He  had  Himself 
laid  down.  In  preaching  Him  to  Gentiles  as  well  as 
to  Jews,  and  in  regarding  Him  as  the  Lord  and  Saviour 
of  mankind,  they  were  influenced,  no  doubt,  by  the 
circumstances  and  conditions  of  their  time.  This  is 
abundantly  evidenced  by  the  history  of  the  early  Church, 
but  it  does  not  affect  the  fact  that  the  Person  of  Jesus, 
as  they  conceived  Him,  justified  them  in  their  own  eyes 
in  making  these  wide-reaching  claims  on  His  behalf. 
The  process  which  they  thus  began  has  been  carried  on 
all  through  the  ages.  All  the  great  controversies  which 
have  raged  round  the  Person  of  Jesus  Christ  have  not 
been  able  to  obscure  His  message  or  diminish  His 
power  over  the  hearts  of  men.  He  speaks  to-day,  as 
He  spoke  long  ages  ago,  through  the  voice  of  a  living 
religious  experience.  As  men  look,  not  back  to  Him 
as  they  are  often  urged  to  do,  but  up  to  Him,  they  find 
the  beginning  of  a  new  life  and  the  inspiration  to  a 
nobler  service.  The  memory  of  His  words  and  the 
example  of   His   deeds   remain   an  undying  source   of 

1   Cf.  H.  J.  Holtzmann,  Das  Messianische  Bewusstsein  Jesu. 


i68  LIFEOFCHRIST 

inspiration.  But  the  true  servant  of  Christ  finds  more  in 
Him  than  this,  precious  and  effective  though  it  is.  His 
living  presence  with  the  soul  of  man  has  become  in 
the  case  of  multitudes  an  experience  which  cannot  be 
gainsaid.  In  the  eyes  of  the  Apostles  Jesus  claimed  to 
fulfil  the  functions  of  the  Old  Testament  Messiah,  to 
judge  the  world,  to  forgive  sins,  and  to  be  the  Lord 
of  life  and  death.  These  are  the  prerogatives  of  God 
Himself,  and  yet  the  modern  Christian  sees  no  in- 
congruity in  granting  the  claim.  That  the  claim  should 
be  contested  is  natural  enough,  and  the  appeal  in  proof 
of  it  is  still,  as  it  was  in  the  early  days,  to  the  experience 
of  those  who  have  known  Christ  for  themselves,  and  to 
the  effect  which  He  has  produced  in  and  through  them. 
As  Von  Dobschiitz  says,^  "  Christianity  possessed  what 
the  speculations  of  Neo-platonism  lacked — the  sure 
historical  basis  of  Jesus  Christ's  Person.  Nor  was  it 
to  a  higher  moral  teaching  that  Christianity  owed  its 
victory.  Stoicism  and  Neo-platonism,  after  all,  produced 
moral  thoughts  of  great  beauty  and  purity,  thoughts 
which  are  more  imposing  to  superficial  contemplation 
than  the  simple  commandments  of  Christianity.  Yet 
neither  of  them  could  enable  artisans  and  old  women 
to  lead  a  truly  philosophical  life.  Christianity  could  and 
did  :  the  apologists  point  triumphantly  to  the  realisation 
*  "Christian  Life  in  the  Primitive  Church,"  Eng.  trans.,  p.  379- 


CHARACTER    OF    JESUS  169 

of  the  moral  ideal  among  Christians  of  every  standing. 
That  was  due  to  the  power  which  issued  from  Jesus 
Christ  and  actually  transformed  men.  The  certainty 
and  confidence  of  faith  based  on  Him,  with  reliance 
on  God's  grace  in  Jesus  Christ,  begot  in  Christians 
a  matchless  delight  in  doing  good.  Joy  in  good  was 
more  potent  than  abhorrence  of  evil.  In  the  midst  of 
an  old  and  dying  world,  this  new  world  springs  up  with 
the  note  of  victory  running  through  it." 

Controversy  round  the  Person  of  Jesus  Christ  has  not 
yet  ceased.  In  some  respects  it  is  keener  than  ever, 
and  its  persistence  is  the  best  possible  testimony  to 
His  power  and  to  the  reality  of  His  work.  There  are 
signs,  however,  amid  all  the  strife,  of  a  certain  consensus 
of  opinion  on  the  main  point.  Even  extreme  critics  of 
the  historicity  of  the  New  Testament  records  do  not 
withhold  their  homage  to  the  Person  of  Jesus.  This 
stands  out  above  all  other  factors  in  shaping  the 
Christian  religion  and  in  giving  to  it  life  and  power. 
In  a  sense  which  is  true  of  no  other  personality  in 
history,  Jesus  Christ  still  lives  and  still  speaks  to  the 
hearts  of  men.  The  truth  of  His  message  each  man 
may  test  for  himself,  not  by  the  process  of  historical 
inquiry  and  criticism  alone,  but  by  those  deeper  and 
more  subtle  processes,  obedience  and  faith.  There  is 
a  charm  about  His  demeanour  and  a  simplicity  about 


I70  LIFEOFCHRIST 

His  words  that  will  always  appeal  to  the  student.  But 
to  know  Him  in  all  His  power  and  beauty  it  is  necessary 
to  become  not  merely  a  student,  but  a  disciple.  To 
the  inner  Sanctuary  of  His  presence  there  is  only  one 
password — My  Lord  and  my  God. 


INDEX 


Accusers  of  Jesus,  140 
Andrew,  48 
Angel,  147 
Anna,  25 
Annas,  137 
Antipas,  Herod,  18 
Apocryphal  Gospels,  27 
Arimathsea,  Joseph  of,  151 
Aristotle,  89 
Authority  of  Jesus,  71 

Back  to  Christ,  70,  91 
Baptism,  88 
Baptism  of  Jesus,  26 
Barabbas,  141 
Bartholomew,  49 
Betrayal  of  Jesus,  127 
Bousset,  Prof.,  86 
Boyhood  of  Jesus,  26 
Buckland,  Frank,  78 
Burkitt,  Prof.  F.  C. ,  4 

C^SAREA  PhILIPPI,  96,  I15 

Caiaphas,  137 

Call  of  the  Disciples,  46 

Cana  in  Galilee,  42 

Character  of  Jesus,  157 

Christian  character,  89 

Chronology  of  the  Gospel,  42 

Chronology  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 

134 
Church  and  kingdom,  87 
Cleansing  of  the  Temple,  43,  126 
Confession  of  Peter,  115 
Consciousness  of  Jesus,  59 


Covenant,  131 
Criticism  of  the  Gospels,  2 
Cross,  the,  145 
Crucifixion,  142 

Daniel,  98 
Deaconesses,  55 
Death  of  Jesus,  136,  144 
Decapolis,  19,  114 
Demoniacs,  65 
Demonology,  66 
Disciples,  46 
Divine  purpose,  61 
Doctrine  of  God,  75 
Doctrine  of  Man,  82 
Draught  of  fishes,  64 

Education  of  Jesus,  30 
Elijah,  118 
Elizabeth,  25 
Emmaus,  154 
Enoch,  98 
Epicurean,  161 
Eschatology,  loi 
Essenes,  56 
Eucharist,  131 
Expositor,  122 

Fairbairn,  Dr.,  40,  122 
Fatherhood  of  God,  75 
Feast  of  Passover,  113 
Feast  of  Tabernacles,  113 
Feeding  of  the  multitudes,  114 
Foot-washing,  133 
Form  of  the  teaching,  70 


172 


INDEX 


Galilee,  19,  107,  113 
God,  idea  of,  80 
Good  Shepherd,  124 
Gospel  of  hope,  83 
Gvvatkin,  61 

Hasting's  •'  Dictionary,"  135 
Hellenism,  20 
Holtzmann,  167 
Hope,  Gospel  of,  83 
Huxley,  58 

ILLINGWORTH,  67 

Impotent  man,  63 
Incarnation,  67 
Isaiah,  74 
Iscariot,  127 

JAIRUS'  daughter,  63 

James,  48 

Jerusalem  ministry,  121 

Joanna,  515 

John,  8,  48 

John  the  Baptist,  34 

Joseph  of  Arimathaea,  151 

Judcea,  16,  121 

Judas,  49 

Kalthoff,  22 
Kasidhim,  no 
Kingdom  of  God,  73 
King  of  the  Jews,  140,  142 

Last  Discourses,  128 

Lazarus,  63 

Leaven  of  the  Gospel,  90 

Logia,  <; 

Lord's  Prayer,  80 

Love  of  God,  78 

Luke,  7 


Mach.crus,  44 

Man  of  Sorrows,  161 

Mark,  3 

Mary,  mother  of  Jesus,  24,  26 

Mary  of  Magdala,  55,  83 

Matthew,  5,  49 

Megiddo,  29 

Messiah,  94 

Messianic  prophecy,  84,  85 

Method  of  teaching,  70 

Ministry  in  Galilee,  107 

Miracles,  57 

Moses,  118 

Nain,  63 
Nativity,  23 
Nature,  62 
Nazareth,  29 
Neo-platonism,  168 
Neumann,  26 
New  Covenant,  131 

Old  Testament,  95 
Oral  tradition,  14 
Originality  of  Jesus,  70 

Pagan  historians,  12 

Palestine,  16 

Papias,  5 

Parables,  73 

Paraclete,  129 

Pascal,  160 

Passover,  124 

Peabody,  71,  163 

Pentecost,  129 

Personality  of  Jesus,  41,  157 

Peter,  48 

Peter's  denial,  139 

Pharisees,  no 

Philip,  18,  49 

Pilate,  139 

Prayer,  80 

Publicans,  119 


INDEX 


173 


Rabbinical  Schools,  30 
Ramsay,  Sir  W. ,  24 
Resurrection,  147 
Robertson,  J,  Isl.,  22 

Sabbath,  hi 

Sacrament,  137 

St.  John's  Gospel,  8 

St.  "Luke's  Gospel,  7 

St.  Mark's  Gospel,  3 

St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  5 

St.  Paul,  149 

Samaritan  woman,  44 

Sanday,  65,  85,  91 

Sanhedrin,  17 

Schmiedel  13,  149 

Schiirer,  iii 

Second  coming,  129 

Sermon  on  the  Mount,  52,  112 

Servant  of  Jehovah,  123 

Simon,  49 

Sinlessness  of  Jesus,  158 

Smith,  Prof.  G.  A. ,  19 

Son  of  God,  99 

Son  cf  Man,  97 

Sower,  87 


Stoics,  161 

Subject-matter  of  teaching,  75 
Suffering  of  Jesus,  100 
Susanna,  55 

Temptation,  37 
Thomas,  49 
Transfiguration,  118 
Trial  of  Jesus,  136 
Tribute  to  Caesar,  127 

Victory  through  suffering,  9c 
Virgin  Birth,  25 
Von  Dobschiitz,  168 

Wernle,  97 
Westcott,  155 
Whitehouse,  Dr.,  66 
Withered  hand,  63 
Women  disciples,  155 
Wright,  Dr.,  135 

Yahweh,  76 

Zacharias,  25 
Zealot,  49 


Printed  by  Ballantyne,  Hanson  &'  Co. 
Edinburgh  ^^  London 


Theological  Seminary-Spee 


1    1012  01145  8546 


